MPR-SAT-FE-66-13 RESULTS OF THE THIRD SAT7JR.

NIB LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT AS-22

BY

Saturn George

Flight

Evaluation

Working

Group Center

C. Marshall

Space Flight

ABSTRACT Saturn IB AS-202 was launched at 1215:32 EST on August 25, 1966 from KSC LC34, under surface conditions of light winds, moderate temperature and humidity, and good visibility. The vehicle lifted off ;liter a total delay of 45 min due to holds, on a launch azimuth 100 deg east cf north and rolled to a flight azimuth 105 deg east of north. Tlw nctual :rajcctory was near nominal. All major systems performed within design limits and close to predicted vnlui~s throughoue flight. Although no malfunctions or deviations occurrctl that adversely affected flight or mission, certain refinements fol- future flights are indicated in camera coverage, amera recovery, guidaitcc, and SPS ignition sequence. The M-202 test flight demonstrated the structural integLity and compatibility of the stages of the launch vehicle and the spacecraft during powred flight and coast. It permitted evaluation of performance of the launch vehicle propulsion, guidance, control, separation, structural and electrical systems,and the efficiency of mission support iacilitics and operations.
The

report

unclassified

is data;

contained in two volumes: Volume II only classified.

Volume

contains

only

Any questions or comments pertaining to the in this report arc invited and should be directed Director, Huntsville, ;!ttention:

information to:

contained

George C. liarshall Space Fli-ht Center Alabama 35812 Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working R-AERO-F (Phone 876-4575)

Group

MPR-SAT-FE-66-13 RESt?LT$ OF THE THIRD SATURN IB LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT AS-2-2 BY Saturn George Flight Evaluation Working Group Center

C. Marshall

Space Flight

ABSTRACT Saturn IB AS-202 was launched at 1215:32 EST on August 25, 1966 from KSC LC34, under surface conditions of light winds, moderate tempcrnture and humidity, and good visibility. The vehicle lifted off after a total delay of 45 mil due to holds, on a launch azimuth LOO deg cast cf north and rolled to a flight azimuth 105 deg east of north. Thi: tictua 1 trajectory was near nominal. major systems performed 19 ithin design limits and close to predicted values throughout flight. Although no malfunctions or deviations occurred that adversely affected flight or mission, certain refinements for future flights are indicated in camera coverage, -amera recovery, guidance, and SPS ignition sequence. The AS-202 test flight demonstrated the structural integLity and compatibility of the st ages of the launch vehicle and the spacecraft during powered flight and coast. it permitted evaluation of performawe of the launch vehicle propulsion, guidance, control, separation, structural and electrical systems,and the efficiency of mission support facilities and operations. The report is unrlnssificd data; contained in two volumes: Volume II only classified. Volume I contains only All

Any questions in this report arc Director, Huntsville, Attention:

or comments pertaining to the invited and should be directed

information to:

contained

George C. Narshall Space Flivht Center Alabama 35812 Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working R-AERO-F (Phone 876-4575)

Group

GEORGEC. EIr\RSHAI.L SPACE FLIGHT CI:NTER

RESULTS OF TEZ THIRD@ATURN B LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT % -pk02 VOLUME I

SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATIOX ~4ORKIINGGROUP

p.igc 1
2.0 3.0 Introduction Test 3.1 3.2 Objectives Launch Vehicle Launch Vehicle Primary Objectives Secondary Objectives 4

4.0

Times of Cvellts Summary of Events 4 .i 4.2 Sequence of Events

(Powered

Flight) 15 15 15 I. 5 20 20 21 22 23 23 23 25 28 25 25 2(1 29 29 30

5.0

Launch Operations 5.1 sunlmary 5.2 Prelaunch Plilestones 5.3 Countdown 5.4 Prcpellant and Cold Helium Loading 5.4.1 IW-1 Loading 5.4.2 LOX Loading 5.4.3 LH2 Loading 5.4.4 Cold Helium Loading 5.6.5 Auxiliary Propulsion System Propellant 5.4.6 S-IB Stage Propellant Load 5.4.7 S-IVB Stage Propellant Load 5.5 Holddow 5.6 Ground Support Equipment 5.7 Launch Facility Measurements Mass 6.1 6.2 6.3 Characteristics Summary Mass Analysis Center of Gravity

Loading

6.0

and Moment of Inertia

Analysis

7.0

Trajectory 7.1 sumary 7.2 Tracking Data Utilization 7.3 Trajectory Analysis 7.4 S-IW/CSM Separation Conditions

iii

TABJ~I: OF CONTEKTS (CONT)

8.0

S-IB 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

S.5 9.0

Propulsion Sunm-~ry S-IB Propulsion Performance 8.2.1 Stage Performance 8.2.2 Individual Engine Characteristics S-IB Propellant Utilization S-'LB Pressurization Systems 8.4.1 Fuel Pressurization System 8.4.2 LOX Tank Pressurization System 8.4.3 Control Pressurization System Camera Ejection System

52 52 52 53 64 67 71 71 73 76 76 77 77 77 77 79 82 85 85 85 89 92 92 97 102 105 105 105 105 108 110 110 110 110 115 115 115 115 115 117

S-IvB Propulsion and Associated Systems 9.1 summary 9.2 S-IVB Propulsion Performance 3,Z.l Engine Chilldown 9.2.2 Start Characteristics 9.2.3 Mainstage Engine Analysis 9.2.4 Cutoff Characteristics 9.3 S-IVB Propellant Utilization 9.3.1 Propellant Mass Analysis 9.3,2 PU Valve Response snd Thrust Fluctuations 9.4 S-IVB Pressurization System 9.4-l Fuel Pressurization System 9.4.2 LOX Pressurization System 9.4.3 Auxiliary Pressurization Systems Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) 10.1 Summary 10.2 APS Performance 10.2.1 Propellant and Pressurization 10.2.2 APS Motor Performance Hydraulic System 11 . 1 s unma l-y 11.2 S-IB Hydraulic 11.3 S-IVB Hydraulic

10.0

Systems

11.0

Systems Systems

12.0

Gllidancc! and Control 1.2. 1 s"m!n; L-y 12.2 System Description 12.2.1 Changes for Saturn IB AS-202 12.2.2 Function and Hardware Description 12.2.3 Wvi~atinn Scheme Description

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT) Page 12.3 Launch Vehicle Flight Control 12.3.1 S-IB Stage Control Analysis 12.3.: S-IV8 Stage Control Analysis 12.3.3 Control During Coast 12.3.4 Control Component Analysis 12.3.4.1 Control Accelerometers 12.3.4.2 Angle-of-Attack Sensor 12.3.4.3 Rate Gyros 12.3.4.4 Actuator Performance Launch Vehicle Guidance 12.4.1 Guidance and Navigation Scheme Performance
Analysis

12.4

118 11s 129 13s 14,O 140 14.0 140 143 143 145 145 145 148 151 151 151 151 151 155 155 165 165 165 167 169 173 173 173 174 174 174 176 176 176 179 I.79 183 183 186

12.4.2

Guidance System Component 12.4.2.1 LVDC/LVDA Analysis 12.4.2.2 ST-L24M3 Stabilized

Analysis Platform Analysis

13.0

Separation 13.1 Summary 13.2 S-IB/S-IVB Separation 13.2.1 Ullage Motor Performance 13.2.2 Retro Rocket Performance 13.2.3 Separation Dynamics 13.3 S-IVB!Spacecraft Separation Vehicle Electrical Systems 14.1 Summary 14.2 S-IB Stage Electrical System 14.3 S-IVB Stage Electrical System 14.4 Instrurrent Unit Electrical System Range Safety and Command Systems Performance .i5.L Summary 15.2 Command Destruct Systems Performance Emergency Detection System (EDS) 16.1 Summary 16.2 Description of EDS 16.3 EDS Bus Voltage 16.4 EDS Event Times 16.5 Thrust @K Pressure Switches 16.6 EDS Rate Gyros 16.7 Launch Vehicle Attitude Reference 16.8 Component Performance Analysis 16.9 Angle-of-Attack Performance 16.10 Noise Input to Control System

14.0

15.0

16.0

Monitoring

TABLE OF CONTEXTS (COVT) Page 17.0 stl-uctures 17. 1 suilmla L-y 17.2 Total Vrhicle Loads and Moments 17.2.1 Longitudinal Loads 17.2.2 Bending Moments 17.2.3 Body Bending Oscillations 17.2.4 Longitudinal Dynamic Analysis 17.3 S-IX Stage Analysis 17.3.1 S-IB Fin Bending and Torsion 17.3.2 S-IB Stage Vibrations 17.3.3 H-l Engine Vibrations 17.4 S-IVB Stage Analysis 17.4.1 S-IVB Vibrations 17.4.2 J-2 Engine Vibrations 17.4.3 S-IVb Internal Acoustics 17.5 Instrument Unit Analysis 17.5.1 Instrument Unit Vibration 190 190 190 190 192 192 192 199 s99 199 201 201 201 201 209 209 209 212 212 212 212 214 221 221 224 224 224 227 227 230 235 242 244 244 244 247 248 248 248 248

(Pogo)

1S.G

Pressure and Thelma1 Environment IS.1 summary 18,2 Vehicle Pressure and Acoustic Environment lS.2,1 Estcrnal Surface Plressures 15.2.2 External Acoustics 18.2.3 S-IB Stage Internal Pressures 18.2.4 S-171 Stage B:se Pressures 18.2.5 S-IB/S-IW Interstage Envi:onment .. 18.2.6 S-IVB Stage Internal Pressure lS.2.7 Instrument Unit and Forward Compartment pressures 15.3 Vehicle Thermal Environment 18.3.1 S-I!: Stage Aerodynamic Heating 15.3.2 S-IVB Stage Aerodynamic Heating 15.3.3 S-IB Stage Base Thermal Environment 15.3.b S-IVB Thermal Environment 18.3.5 Instrument Unit Temperatures Instrument Unit Environmental Control Systems ls.i; 15.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System 18.6.2 Gas Bearing Supply System Aerodynamics 19.1 summary 19.2 Fin Surface

19.0

Pressures

i0.3

Dr3g

TABLE OF CONITEl\iTS (COhT)

2@.0

Instrumenration 20.1 smmary 20,2 Vehicle

W53sucing

Analysis

20.2.1 20.z12
20.2.3

S-IB
S..I\m

Stage Measuring
>kasuring Analysis Analysis

Analysis

20.3

IIJ Measuring Airborne Telemetry

s-m S-IVB stage Stage

Systems

20*3.1 20.3-Z 20.3.3

20.4
20.5

20.6

Instrument Unit Airborne Tape Recorders RF System Analysis 20.5.1 Telemetry 20.5.2 Onboard Television 20.5.3 Tracking Optical Instrumentation 20.6.1 C-round Cameras 20.6.2 Onboard Cameras

253 253 253 253 256 256 256 256 258 "58 259 260 260 262 262 263 263 2 6h 267 267 267 269 269 269 272 272 272 272 275 277 277 279 251 261 2u

21.0

Spacecraft 21.1 Summary 21.2 Spacecraft Sumi~r);

22.1 22.2

Performance and Deviations and Deviations

22.0

of Malfunctions

summary

Systems Malfunctions Description

Appendix A Vehicle A.1 Sumiiary

A.2 s-m stage

A.3 A.4 A.5

A.2.1 S-IB Configuration A.2.2 S-IB-2 Configuration Differences S-IVB Stage A.3.1 S-ISB Configuration A-3.2 S-IVB-202 Configuration Differences Instrument Unit A.&.1 IU Configuration A.&.2 IU-202 Configuration Differences Payload A.5. I Comiand Xodule A.5.2 Service Xodule 8.5.3 Lunar Excursion Xodule Adapter

285 285 285

287

LIST Figure 17-L 17-2 17-3 17-4 17-5 17-b 17-7 17-8 17-9 17-10 17-11 17-12 L7-13 18-L 18-2 18-3 18-4 18-5 18-6 18-7 18-b 18-9 18-10 18-11 18-12 15-13 18-14 18-15 1X-16 18-17 18-18 18-19 18-20 18-21 18-22 19-l 19-2 19-3

OF FIGURES (COST)

Vehicle Longitudinal Force Distribution Longitudinal Load (from Strain Data at Sta, 23.9 m) Vehicle Bending Moment Vehicle Bending Modes Vehicle Bending Amplitudes Fin Bending and Torsion Modes S-IB Structure Vibration Envelopes S-IB Component Vibration Envelopes S-T.B Fin Vibration Envelopes H-L Engine Vibration Envelopes S-IVB Vibration Envelopes S-IVB Forward Skirt Acoustic Envelope IU Vibration Envelopes Fuel Tank and 60' Fairing Pressure Vehicle Noise Environment at Liftoff OASPL at Various Vehicle Locations Correlation of the AS-20; Unsteady Shock Wave With Wind Tunnel Shadow Graphs Shock Fluctuating Pressure Coefficient Shock Pressure Spectra S-IB Stage Internal and Base Pressures S-IB Flame and Heat Shield Pressure Environment Forward and Aft Compartment Pressure Environment IU Compartment and Component Pressures Typical S-IB Thermal Envirolunent and Tail Shroud Temperatures Typical Fin Side Panel and Trailing Edge Temperature Histories Forward Skirt and LH2 Temperatures Aft Skirt Temperature Histories Aft Interstage and Protuberance rhermal EnvironmenC Heat Shield Outer Region Thermal Environment Heat Shield Inner Region Thermal Environment Flame Shield Thermal Environment Fin Trailing Edge Thermal Environment Fin Trailing Edge ThermaL Environment--Fin 2 IIJ Compartment and Component Thermal Environment Environmental Control System Operation Fin 5 Differential Pressure Coefficient Fin 7 Differentfal Pressure Coef:i~'rnt Base Drag and Axial Force Coefficients

191 I.93 195 196 197 200 203 2C4 205 206 208 210 211 2L3 215 216 217 219 220 222 223 225 226 228 229 231 233 234 23: 237 239 241 243 245 246 249 250 251

xi

LIST OF FIGURES (CONC) Figure

20-I.

Pag:(, AS-202 RF System Covr:ra~e Catnc~ra Ejection System AS-202 Configuration s-13 sragc S-IVE Stage Instrument Unit Layout and Antenna Orientation Instrument Unit Components Layout PaylOad AS-202 ScaZar Law& Wind AS-202 Launch Time Wind Direction AS-202 Launch Time Pitch Wi2d Cotipckent,(Wx) AS-202 Launch Time Yaw Wind Components' AS-202 Launch Time Pitch (Sx) and Yaw (S,) Component Wind Shears Relative Deviation of AS-202 Temperature and Density from PAPB (63) Reference Atmosphsre Relative Deviation of Pressure and Absolute Deviations of the Index of Refraction from the PAFB (63) Reference Atmosphere, AS-202
261

20-Z A-l
A-2 A-3 A-4

265
273 274 278

282
283 286 292 293

A-5
A-6

B-l R-2 u-a n-4 Ii- 5 13-6 R-7

294
295

296 298 299

xii

LIST

OF TABtES

Table
4-T 4-11 5-I 5-U 5-III 5-m 6-I b-11 G-III 7-f 7-fI 7-I11 l-IV 7-v 8-I 8-11 8-111 8-U 8-v 8-VI

Page
AS-202 Event Times Summary
AS-202
AS-202

s
9 1.6 1s

Milestones Countdown Summary AS-202 S-IB Stage Propellant

Command AS-202 S-IVB

Sequence Prelaunch

of

Events

Weights Weights
Summsry

at Ignition
26

Ignition
AS-202 Flight

Stage Propellant Gommand

Sequence Mass

at S-IB
27 31 32 39 4,l 45 48 49 51. 54 57 60 63 63 68 67 71. 79 83 87 102 LO6

8-VII 8-VIII
9-I 9-11

Y-III 9-IV
10-I 11-I L2-I 12-n

12-111 12-IV
12-V 13-I 13-11 16-I 16-11 16-111

Vehicle Masses Mass Characteristic Comparisons Data Utilization Cutoff Conditions Velocity Gain (m/s) Significant Events S-IvB/CSM Separation Parameters tingine Start Characteristics S-IB Stage Inflight Performance, Pa;amcters Average S-IB Stage Sea Level PKOpulsiOn Parameters Velocity Deviation Analysis Time Deviation Analysis AS-202 Average Individual Engine Performance at 30 Seconds Propellant Utilization Cutoff Probe Activation Characteristics MOV Opening Times S-IVB Propulsion System Performance S-IVB Propellant Mass Pistory Helium Mass Usage Rates APS Propellant Consumption S-LVB Hydraulic System Parameters Maximum Control Parameters S-IB Stage Separation Parameters APS Event Summary S-IB Actuator Maximum Performance Data S-IVB Actuator 'Maximum Parameters Ullage Motor Performance Retro Rocket Performance Switch Selector Functions Pertinent to EDS (AS-202) AS-202 Telemetered EDS Signals Switch Actuation Times and Pressures for S-IB and S-IVB Thrust OK Pressure Switches

113 119
129 135 144 144 152 1514 177 175 180

xiii

LIST T3blC 17-I 17-II 17-III l?-IV 20-I 20-11 '2-I B-I B-II B-III B-TV

OF TABLES (COW) Page

Vchicl<~ Nnxil,wm Bending Moments (at Sta. 23.9 m) Lon~iit~~ciin~~l Response Frequencies S-15 Vibration Summary S-IVB Vibrat'ln Summary Measurement Malfunctirns AS-202 Launch Vehicle :ielemetry Systtxn Description Summar-p of Malfunction; and Deviations Surfacr> Observations 'it AS-202 Lztunch Time Systems Used to Measure Upper Air Wind Data AS-202 Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region Extreme Wind Shear in High Dynamic Pressure Region

194 198 202 207 254 257 270 289 290 300 301

(U) Abbreviation APD ABS AS AGC AGCS APS CG CIF CW CM CSM CSP GCF CCL! co DON DDAS ELS EST ETR EPS ESE EDS EEIR E?iRC ESC ECS ETI? EBW FRR GFCV GBI GTI GSE GRR IECO IGM LC LCC I-ES LCT LV

ABBREVIATIONS

Adapter Positioning Device Air Bearing Supply System Apollo-Saturn Automatic Gain Control Automatic Ground Control Station Auxiliary Propulsion? System Center of Gravity Central Information Facility Clockwise Command Module Command Service Module Control Signal Processor Converter compressor Facility Counterclockwise Cutoff Data Output Multiplexer Digital Data Acquisition System Earth Landing System ;tandard Time Eastern Eastern Test Range Electrical Power System Electrical Support Equipment Emergency Detection System Engine Mixture Ratio Engien Mixture Ratio Change Engine Start Command Envircnmental Control System Error Time l\'>,rds Exploding Bridge Idire Flight Readiness Revierj GOX Flow Control Valve Grand Bahama Island Grand Turk Island Ground Support Equipment Guidance Reference Release Inboard Engine Cutoff Iterative Guidance Mode Launch Complex Launch Control Center Launch Escape System Launch Escape Tower Launch Vehicle

(U) Abbreviation LVDA LVDC MOV MILA

$11

ARRKEVIATIOh'S

(COW)

NPSP NC NO OECO OASPL PACPS PSD PCD PTCS PU PCN PDF1 RCS mm RNRC RDSM RMS SA SN SPS SSB sv SIC OS SC scs SM SMCS SC0 ss TN T/C F /n TOPS UT vco VWR

Launch Vehicle ,Data Adapter Launch Vehicle Digital Computer Main Oxidizer Valve Merritt Island Launch Area Mineral Insulation Net Positive Suctibn Pressure Normally Closed, Normally Open Outboard Engine Cutoff Overall Sound Pressure Level Platform AC Power Supply Power Spectral Density Pressure Control Device Prapellanr Tanking Computer Sys?em Prope!lant Utilization Pulse Code Modulation Pulse Duration Modulation Reaction Control System Reference Mixture Ratio Reference ,Mi%ture Ratio,Change Remote Digital Submultiplexer Root Mean Square Saturn Service Module Service Propulsion System Single Side Band Space Vehicle Spacecraft Spacecraft Control System Spacecraft LEN Adapter Steering Wisalignment Correction Term Sub Carrier Oscillators Switch Selector Telemetry Thrust Chamber Thrust/F&ss Thrust OK Pressure Switches Universal Time Vehicle Carrier Oscillators Visual Standing Fave Ratio

CONVERSIONFACTORS TO IXTEWATIONAL SYSTm OF UNITS OF 1960 Parameter acceleration area barometedensity energy pressure To Obtain

m2 N/cm2 Q./m3 watt-s kg/s

131,

force heating impulse length rate

N (Newton) watt/cm2 N-S m m

N-m mnment of inertia 2,9287508x10kw NICJ 4 788025898x10specific temperature weight N/Cd N/J "K kg-n? ~~

velocity

Note:

g, = 9.80665 n/s2

(exact)

BLANK

PIPR-SAT-FE-66-13 RESULTS OF THE THIRD LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT AS-202 1.0 FLIGHT TEST SLQWARY

Saturn II3 Space Vehicle U-202, third of the Saturn IS scric:: vehfcles, was launched at 1215:32 EST on August 25, 1966, and placed Apollo Spacecraft 011 in orbit. The flight test was the third in a series of R&D test flights in which the primary objective is to flighttest and qualify the Saturn IB launch vehicles and the Apollo spacecraftOther important objectives were to evaluate the space vehicle Emergency Detection System in the closed loop configuration and to evaluate the: S-IVB common 'bulkhead reversal test. AS-202 was launched from Launch Complex 34 at Cape Kennedy, Florida, after a total delay time of 45 minutes resulting from holds o-xcecding the The total hold time for AS-202 was 1 hr two built-in 30-minute holds. and 45 minutes. The holds resulted from an RCA-11OA procedural problem, a tracking ship computer update problem, and an BPS power indication problem. No re-cycling of the count was required because of the holds. AS-202 was launched on an azimuth of 100 deg east of north and after 10.3 set of vertical flight rolled into a flight azimuth of 105 de5 east of north. T'ne actual trajectory of AS-202 was close to nominal. The total space-fixed velocity was 20.8 m/s higher than nominal at outboard engine cutoff and 0.6 m/s higher than nominal at S-IV% cutoff* At S-IVB cutoff, the altitude was 0.1 km lover than nominal and the surface range was 38.4 km shorter than nominal. At S-IVB/IU/CSi'l m/s higher separation, the vehicle's total space-fixed velocity +:as 1.6 than nominal. The S-IB stage propulsion system performed satisfactxily throughout The stage thrust,, specific impulse, and propellant flowrates fright. were l.Ol%, O-43%, and 0.5% higher than predicted, based upon flight simulation results. inboard engine cutoff occurred 2.03 see tarlier than and outboard engine cutoff occurred 3.9 set after inboard predicted, engine cutoff or 1.13 set earlier than predicted. Outboard ensine cutoff was initiated by the actuation of the fuei depletion sensor in t!lc sump of fuel tank F2. All S-IB stage mechanical systems functioned satisfactorily. Tine S-IVB stage propulsion system performance was nominal thro~ughout. However, flight. a minor anomaly occurred when the fuel recirculation shutoff valve failed to close as expected, prior to enzinc start command. rate were 1.987: h&her The S-IVB stage thrnst and mass loss than predicted and tSe specific impulse :;as 0.5% higher than nrcdictcd.

Table 4-1 presents a summary oi event times, obtained from performance analysis of launch vehicle AS-202. Event,times generally were The most significant deviations from prequite close to prediction, dicted shown in the table are 101: lel;el senseandIEC# 'on the S-Z stage and engine mixture ratio shift and cutoff of the STIVR stage. Causes of these time deviations ,are discussed in '&tail in Sect&s S-0 and 9.9 of this report.

Range zero was 1715r32 IJT and iiftoffoccurred 0.33 set lat,er or at 1715:32.93 UT. Guidance Reference Release (GRR) bould be ckpccted at -4.27 set range ,time (time rrom range zero):; Guidance Reference ,Release actnally occurred at -Z.468 seconds;' First motion of the vehicle occurred at 0.73 set range time. ,,, Switch selectors in the S-IB stage, S:$>iB stage,, ~a~~d,Instrument Unit provided programmed event sequencing 'for the vehicle:~, :The'Launch VebicLc Digital Computer (LVDC) provided programmed input to the'appropriarc switch sekotor. If,a sw$tch selector malfunction had occurred, 3 cornqlement ,address r. gould,have been sent to the ! switch selector, ~bereby providin,g redundancy. The analysis indicated rhat no output,roauitcd, from complement addresses to the switch selector;, hence, rhe operation w5 normal. Table 4-11 lists the switch selector evont~times., bases in range time were established as fu1ibws: = 0.92 set Propellant Outboard s-nfB Level Sense pi.me~Base 2)= 136.52 set Tbe~ ncm&al time

Engine Cutoff Out B&e,rrupt

(Time Base 3)= 143.47 see (Time Base 4)= 588.72 set

Eq#F2

TABLE 4-1 AS-202 EVEhI TINES SUHMARY

First Liftoff Start Start

Motion

Roll Pitch

End Roll Enable Engines

LOW Level Sense

EIJS Cutoff (LLS)

Stop Pitch

TABLE 4-Ii AS-202 SEQUEXCEOF EWXCS

stage IU IU S-IB S-13 IU S-I% IU S-IB 17 IU III IU S-13 IU IU I# S-Iv% S-Iv3 s-IVB s-n%

Range Time I-3

0.33 5.90 10.89 25.88 27.89 34r90 4.97 9.96 5.0

10.0
25.0 27.0 30.0

24.93
z$6,96 '29.97

,32.90 ,39.88

,31.97 38.95

32.4 39.0

60.88

59.93

60.4

90.94

89.97, 90.13

90.4 90.2

Pl.OS, 96,lO 120.68 124.89

121.10 125,84 128.38 X28.,38 133.01 133*18

95-l?
119.75

95.2 119.8

119.96 120.17

120.4 tm.2

TABLE 4-11 Function

(CONTI
-

I Base (set:

Abort

Inhibit (Y. P or R) Auto-

Excessive Rate Abort Inhibit Enah S-IB Enable Engine

IU Out Auto-Abort Level Inhibit Sensors ActuaS-IB,

134.88'

133.95

i34.0 134.2 134.4

0.0

134.16 134.36 I I 136.52

00 .,oo

Propellant

S-P, Propellant tion - Start IU Tape Recorder Fast Record Cameras Start On

Level Sensor of TB 2 Record On

1.17 1.95 2.76 3.05

I

1.2 2.0
2.8

3.1 3.3 3.8

3.25

Charge Prevalves

Ullage

Ignition Off

On

Closed

LOX Depletion Fuel Depletion

Cutoff

Enable Enable Cutoff - Start

Cutoff Engine Off Ignition

S-IB Outboard of] Engine Fire Cutoff Ullage

11
TABI-E 4-11 Function (CONT)

Mode On Engine Ready Bypass

Eugine
Fuel

Start
Chilldown

Interlock
Pump Off Pump Off Valves

Bypass

On

LOX Chilldorjn Chilldokn Engine

Shutoff Start On

Closed

On

Switches Engine Start Flighr Off Pressure Temperature 1 Relay Kntzerlock On Playback Off Jettison Settison Valve Reset Reset On Open 0x1 Enable On On Bypass Off Sysiem On

LOX Tank Fuel Engine Engine

Injection Burning Start

OR Bypass

PU Activate mergemy Fast Charge Fire fjarer tIllage ITllage Record Dllage llllage Codant

charging Firiiag

*Estkted

-rljtes

12 TABLE 4-II (CONT)

Function

Stage

Dnergency LETI Jettison LF1 Jettison

Playback "A" "B" Calibrator

Enabla

Off

S-IVB IU IU

Telemeter Calibrate Telemeter Flight Telemeter Calibrate Regular Telemeter Calibrate Regular Flight Point Engine

In-Flight IU

Calibrator Calibrate Calibrator

Stop

InIU

In-Flight IU

Calibration Calibrator

Relays Stop

On In-Flight

s-IVB

IL! Calibration Relays Computer Off Switch Iii 1 Relay Off In-Flight IU Calibrator Stop In-Flight IU Sensor Cutoff Base Open or3 Arming (Guidance) 4 (T,,) On Z-IVB s-IVB s-IVB s-IVB S-IVB S-IVB 504.52 581.73 588,47 588.72 589.08 589,27 589.47 583.87 s-IVB S-SW

Control 3 Burning

Tclem~ter Calibrate Telemeter Calibrate Paint S-NE Start LOX Level Engine of Tank

Calibrator

Time Vent Closed

Prevalves

LOX

Tank

Flight

Pressure

System

Off

S-IVB

TABLE 4-11 Function

(CohT)

LOX Chilldown Pump Purge Valve open Off Point Level Sensor System Off and dc Por;er
Cmtrol

Control

Disarming Off Enable

Range Safety PU Activate Inverter

Plight

Off s-Iv%

Computer

Burn Mode Off Auxiliary Hydraulic Pump Off

LOX Tank vent LOX Tank Vent LVlSC Separation

open Off Boost Closed On

Start

Sequence

LOX Tank Vent Boost Special Regular Regular Special Calibrate Calibrate Calibrate Calibrate

Closed Relays Relays

Relays

Off On On Off Off

Relays Pla-$ack pilot Of; Playback

IU Tape Recorder Reverse Un Chilldown shatoff Close Off EYevalues Closed

valve

173 Tape Recorder Reverse Off

14

Function

~elemrtrr

Calibrate

In-Flight

,,

15

Apollo/Saturn vehicle ~~202, the third vehicle was launched from Launch Camp .um IB series, launch time, the wather conditions were favorable winds were light from the southwest, ,an,d th although there was high broken cloud covera Ht rain showers visible in the area. tracking station in Antigua tnreawneo an a The final countdown was picked~up at'T-12hours at:,223UEST on The countdown nrooeeded ,safisfa&tori,l$ ,except ,for holds Aueust 24. 1966. of 1 hr and 40 min due to a proceduraLpr< +m wirh,:t+ ~RC.P.-~110~ ground computer in connection Gith Instrument Unit interaal:power transfer, a 41;mix hold due to a computer update, problem dn'thr Ro,se Knot: Victor tracking ship, and a 4-,min ho1 d to investigate, auxiliary propulsion system power indication proble ms. Because,,of :t,he"poS,sibIt- 'Larli: Iaunch preparationsat Antxgua,, launch 'xx~ntdown cutoff time, due to hurricane _ ,_ time was advanced 40 min at 0525 EST. '30 re-cycliiq of the ,caunt was . !ff,,occurred'at,l215:32 EST on August required due to the holdi, ar&liftc :launch 2,5, 1966. A total ,time delay of 45 nin,,in e,xceSs, of' the predicted time of 1130 EST resulte> 3 from the holds, ,when, the cou,ntdown cloCk advance and two 30 min holds schl eduled in the coutit'ddwn i&re rneluded in the accounting. satisfactorily and the launch 311 launch support equipm ent functioned control measurements indicated nominal opera,iion of the vehicle and support systems. Ewexr, i? short load of Rp-I in the,S-IB stage fuel tanks, of fuel trapped in the was encountered, probably due to a small 'quantity sensing line connected to the high p,ressure side of ,the manometer and pressure transducer causing er ratic readingsof, the differential oresFollowing the launch, an assessment, of damage indicated sures. the general condition of the facility to be ,nominal, 5.2 PREIAUNCH MILESTONES leading to' the

A chronological'summary of events and ,preparacions launch of AS-202 is shown in Table 5-T.

The AS-202 fLna1 count i.;as picked up at T-12 hours at 2230 EST on time zas 1130 EST on August 25, August 24, 1966, The planned liftoff the count, once r;i 1966. T:GO scheduled 30 min holds wre planned within T-4 hr and 30 min, the other at T-30 minutes,

TABLE 5-I AS-202 PREL.4UNCH MILESTONES

S-IS stage ~ransporced insrallarion Match xorch parch mrch nareh Marc,, mrc,, March April April April April April April 4, 1966

arrived i?f KSC vii barge, m hangar AF for receivirq of ttree fins.

~43% off-loaded, inspection

and and and the

S-I,, stage erected on Launch Conpl& 34 (U-Y+), remaining fina were subsequently insts&led. propulsion S-WE SW+? check erected Unit (Ill) started. and mated. erected and mated. test. SC." nctiolal~ t: ~sunch mopulsioc vehicle propellant completed. flight sequence plugs sequence anyI Exploding Bridge di+ersion,,test. test.'

2, 1966 10, 1966 l,l, I?, 21, 24, 25, 18, 1966 1966 1966 1966 1466 1966

~nntrwaent

19, 1966 23, 27, 29, la, 1966 1966 1966 1966

check

Launch uehi.cle (EFSJ) Test:. Launch 'Launch s-m vehicle vehicle srage

Wire'

malfunction'test. test 1.

,in overall test.

22% LOX load erected

Spacecraft

and mated. Detection malfunction test system test. 2. (EDS) test.

~ac;nch vehicle Launch Launch vehicle vehicke

emergency sequence plugs

in o~~erall

sp8w Launch Launch space S-i!! S-Im LZS?dl

vehicle xehiclc vehicle vehicle stage scagr W-1

plugs

oaf

overall

test. Test (CDDT), Part I.

Countdown CDM!, Part system loaded.

Dmonsrration II. readiness

flight

test.

APS propellants pi.cked

loaded. up at 2230 EST *t T-l2 hours.

ca!a~down

17

System (EDS) test Early in the countdown, the Emergency Detection scheduled at T-11 hr and 30 min was delayed one hour and had to be conducted without the normal data interface due to problems with the A2A data transmission lines between the Spacecraft (SC) computer and the 0125 EST on RCA-ilOA computer. At T-9 hr and 5 min, at approximately August 25, 1966, trouble developed between the RCA-11OA computer and the launch vehicle digital computer in the instrument unit.' A hold was caller: during which time the problem,vas resolved as an RCA-11OA for one hour, The count was picked up at 0225 EST but was again procedural problem. stopped at about T-g hr and 24.5 min, for, a repeat of the same problem. The countdown was again resumed at 0345 EST afteran additional ,hold of 40 minutes. a 1300,EST cutoff me to the above holds, and the ,probabilityof time because of hurricane preparations at Antigua Island, a decision was This titie, made to attempt to return T-O to 1130,EST. recovery was to be made up by eliminating the final EDS test scheduled,at T-3 hr and by paralleling the closeout of the spacecraft command module with the 'cornAccordingly, the pletion of the launch vehicle pretankin g operation, countdown clock was advanced to T-6 hr and 5 min,,,at 05'2.5,EST and spacecraft closeout was initiated at that time, The countdown continued without additional ,unscheduIed holds nntil T-20 nin, at approximately 1110 EST. At this time, a kl.-min hold was railed because of a computer update problem on ,the Rose Knot Victor tracking ship. The problem was cleared and the count picked'up at 1151 EST and continued to T-3 minutes. At this time, a hold was calleG because During this the auxiliary propulsion system (APS) lost power indication. hold, the RI'-1 Propellant Tanking Computer System (PTCS) nass ,readout started decreasing. The 99.98% mass reading, obtained at final level adjust at T-8 min, dropped to about 59.4% when line inert started. This is further discussed later. The APS power indicaticin returned without explanation. Decisions were made that sufficient fuel was onboard, and The count was resumed at 1212 EST to launch with the mass indicated. and liftoff occurred at 1215:32 EST. Table 5-11 is a summary of the terminal resulting lost time. The following caused no delay: signific.snt problems countdown during problems and the

occurred

t~ountdtiwn but ",',

1. The battery voltage the voltage to specificaticn One of the four Gereracor (SPGG) Ini-rator with ::nu, and boltl*.Time

tap on one ID battery was cllanged to adjust at T-10 hr and 30 mir,utes.

D::us fasteners, on engins? 4 Solid Propellant Gas r-Jotild not engage and hsd to be replaced cove 0532r&.

18

j ChC

Two 30-minute built-in ?duled in t!lc countdown. Lost

holds

at T-4 hr 30 min holds Was as folli

time due to unscheduled

Lost Time

COUIltdOWn

Time T-9 hr 5 min

T-8

(min)
60

Hold

for RCA-

hr 24.5~ min

40 ,41 4

Eold for rep< problem, Hold for problel trac

T-20 min T-3 min

Sub-Total Minus ~-6 hr 45 min

145 60 40 Scheduled
Time

holds. co,

gkined,when

Total

Lost Time

45

19 of GN2, a pressure ,switch failed in the 3. During switchover pneumatic control panel and caused a switchover to the redi nldanc Environmental Control System (ECS) unit. This occurred at 0840 EZ and had no ;T effect on the launch. The "clcsed" indication on LOX relief valve, 1 was no,t received during LOX bubbling at approximately 085,9 EST. 'Because, of tank pressure buildup, the absence of GOX, and the bubbling t ime required; the problem, was attributed To an intermittent micro&j ?t& which,',had ti history, bf' The indication returned shortly and tl he count,,was not affected. dropout. 4. the :LOX chilldown, pump was 5. Prior to S-IVB stage LOX loading; purge, co+zroJ: valv,!, ,a:~! the purg'e purged a minimum of 15 min with the Dad'in the S-IB 'tank,, ,thf S-IVB LOX tank vent valve open, At 90% LOX 11 vent valve was closed and the LOX chilldot, in pump caviQ:i$as ,pressurized. re increased normallyz and the During initial pressurization, t&e pressul valve. pressure switch picked up at the 'clo sing of the :pu?ge cqntrol -- l.ur puLup LqYLLy decreased plr>auLe: Subsequently. during LOX loadi: Kg, .L^ -..-- '^^-1:-- -.L:-:.-, rapidiy to i:38 to 2:07 N/cm2 (2 tc 3 psi)./The purge con&rol valve was cycled from the blcckhouse panel @.th,no result! 3. " Then, the col!tr01 helium system helium regulator shutoff valve was closed, and the control pressure was allowed to decrease to 68.95 N/cm2 (100 psi). At this p?int, the regulator shutoff valve was reopened, s,ub;et sting the purge ,control 310;26N/,cm2 '(450 psi) "pressure valve and/or orifices to appro: rimately shock". This was done twice. Pressure then, rose to 'a normal level, with', up and c1osini.g: the purge cotitrol 'waive; the press sure switch picking thereafter, it operated normally, Apparen tlY, the'problem was leakage by a differential chilldown rate bebeen in the motor case seal,,caused the seal and case., This, confil suration has b&en modified~on all,subsequcnt stages, and s,hould pose no far ther problem. 0952 EST; the,overfill senwr on the RP-1 tank 6. At approximately was picked up during the rt-wlenish sequence, ':ThCmaaometer ,reading,was a fuel level'of 12.37 x/cm2 differential (17.94'psid) whit' h shotild,have 6.4 cm (2.5 in) below the over: fill se nsor'at Later review of 300.2'~. the operations indicated the pg Jssibil ity of W-1 be:ing pushed into the manometer line and the manometr sr purg e line during the time when the W-1 tank was pressurized for the APS firing. :The erroneous indication was exhibited again f, rom T-8 min to manometer system isolation aiter ,firing command. The final level adjust looked,good at T-8 Inin, but the mass readout dropped to 99.4% during the: T-3 min hold, The indicatj.on was considered erroneous and the count continued.

20

One of the four sensor chains of system (measurement XC-116) became erratic was disabled by removing the rate detector p;,1ncl. 5.4 PROPELZW;<T AND COLD RELItIN bOADING

7.

the fire detection monitor at T-47 minutes. The channel cord from the blockhouse

117 loading the S-IU stage, the propellant tankine ,: computer system (PTCS) measures the pressure difference between L 3enSin~ 0 lines in :fuel tank F4, and also in the center LOX tank. The,dj i,fferential pressures required to tank the fuel and LOX, together with PTCS reference values, are given in the propellant loading table. The referf rice values are determined by calibration of the pressure transdl lC?TZS, at the launch complex. 5.4.1 W-l LOADING

The S-ID stage of AS-202 was loaded with,RP- .1 on August 18, 1966, .~ commencing at approximately 1030 EST. The flow rate t ,o the vehicle,was not allowed to exceed 0.076 m3/s (1,200&m), to Ipermit work to continue on the pad. The tanks were filled in tha auto-51 :ov fill mode, to,lS% of the refcrcncc pressure (PTCS setting of 8,879, which corresponds to 12.3291 N/cm* differential or 17.SSlS psid); and from 15 to 95%'in the semi-fast fill mode. The transfer pump was turne !d off at 95%, and the auto-sloli fill sequence was initiated to complete :,the loading operation. No anomalies occurred. Ambient temperature of tl le fueL tanks increased from 300.4'~ prior to Loading, to 304.8oK when tk 1e level ,had reached LOO%. After 100% was obtained, the computer reference pressure was reset, to a lower value, and the auto-adjust level sequences was no' rmal. These operations were followed by an auto-replenish sequences , an auto-adjust level scqui~nce, another replenish sequence, a matnual adjust leve: 1 sequence, and ti vehicle leak check. The fuel level was left at 3% ullage for s!xndby until the start of terminal eountdor,n. No leaks were reported fr@m the leak check. the first auto-replenish sequence, a problem in ridding the country line of air was encountered, even though the 5.1 cm (2 in] vent LIrap 1x36 bn ten replaced by a10.2 cm (4 in) vent trap. From the vent trap action in relation to sensor 2, the vent trap appeared to sense W-1 before the Line was full enough to wet the sensor. The problem WI s 3 ppn 1<!'111\- caused by the Location f of the vent trap connection into the lint. The root trap take-off is recommended to be moved, from the side of the horizoiital run, to the riser. Rl-1 .At T-6 hr in the sountdcwn, the average fuel temperature was :I PTCS reference value of 8,909, ~?hich corresponds to 12.309 R/cm2 icrt~nti:;l (i7.9~~0 psid) j xas set in the fuel computer in order to t!><t ft:cl load to t:. 2.07; ull;gc level or the maximum fuel weight at 300.2OK. difincrease this During cross

A minimum 2.0% fuel ullage volunms is maintained during temperature. loading as a safety precaution. Failure of the SGlenOid valves constraining the fuel tank pressurant, a: a time when the ullage volume is less of the fuel tanks. than 2.0%, could c.~use rupture At about T-5 hr lating. Therefore, brated and the fuel tions then decreased (2 0.02 psid), which tank ullage pressure (0630 EST), the S-IB fuel level indica~tor l<as oscilthe propellant: loading monitoring system was recalisensing lines were pl.xged. The fuel level oscillato an acceptable limit of + 0,014 N/cm2 differential corresponds with the amount attributable co fuel variations caused by changing wind loads. fuel load adjustment was made, 'the fuel oscillations between 12.36 N/cm2 differential differential (17.96,psid). Although this normal for fuel standby conditions, the to cast undue suspicion upon theaccuracy

From T-5 hr to the time computer indicated pressure (17.92 psid) and 12.38 K/cm2 oscillation was greater than magnitude was not suffieient of the measurement.

At T-15 min in the count, the average fuel temperature projected requirin g the fuel'load to be decreased. to stage ignition was 297.0K, A PTCS reference value of 8,864, which corresponded, to 12.308 m/cm2 differential (17.851 psid), was set in the fuel ~computer; and, at T-11 min, the ground drain valve was opened to permit fuel'load adjustment. The time normally required for this adjustment is approximately one minute. When the drain valve opened, the PTCS did not indicate an immediate drop in fuel level although position measurements on the fill and dr2i.n valve indicated fully open. At T-8 min, the automatic fuel com- shoxed 99.98% of the reference pressure, and the adjustment was t ~,red complete. HOWeVer, after the vehicle fill and drain valve C, clo--xl, the automatic computer reading continued to fall and had decreased to 99.28% of the reference pressure at T-3 minutes. A "hold" in the count was initiated at T-3 minutes. k'hen the count was resumed, the automatic fuel computer indicated 99.35% of the reference pressure and increased to 99.43% at the beginning of the automatic launch sequence. After launch sequence start, mass indication sense line solenoids closed and did not indicate mass percentage., However, the readout indicated a previous trapped pressure which dropped to approximately 72% indication. Normally, the pressure indication ?jould stay approximately 99 plus percent, Therefore, the conclusion was reached that a problem existed i,n the sensing and indicating system, 5.4.2 leaks LOX LOADING LOX system prelaunch procedures were detected and all automatic and loading sequences were satisfactory. were accomplished. No

22 The S-IB stage prc-cool command was initiated at T-4 hr and 25 min or 0705 EST. LOX transfer by pressure from the main storage tank is required until the automatic LOX computer indicates 22% of the reference loading pressure. However, the auto-manual discretes manual switch was placed in the manual position to prevent the main supply __ pump from coming _ for on at 22%. The LOX tanks were pressure-loaded until a ,clearance fast fill was given at 38.5% of the reference pressure . The flcwrate was than increased from 0.057 m3/s (900 gpm) to C b.180 m3/s (2,850 gpm). Stop fast fill occurred at 96% of the reference I ,ressure, 'and the PTCS showed the S-IE stage LOX loading to be 99% dompl .et& at approximately 0811 EST, S-IVB main line chilldown was initiated at approx imate,ly 0813 EST. The S-IVB pr:e-cool lasted 10 min and 30 set ,, ,and the supply pump came,on the line at 1.7% level in the S-IVB LOX iank.' LOX was loaded at a rate of 0.032 m3/s (500 gpm) to 7.5% tank level, and 0.049 m3/s (775 gpm) to the 98% tank level. Slow fill was at 0.014 m3/K (220'gpm) until the 100% level was reached at approximately 085,l. EST, and the LOX loading of both stages was complete at 0855 EST. The LOX storage tank levels beforeloading " pi ere 499,.7 m3 (132,000 gal) in the main tank, and 46.2 m3 (12.200 ;al)~ in 'the replenish p tank, These levels included the ex tra two-tankerswhich were unload&d at had been made thatthe storage tank renlenish 0630 EST. A decision at T-3 hr would not be performed, and the remaini ,&tankers were sent back to their standby area. At completion cjf the loading operation, the main tank _Ieve,l was 151.4 m3 (40,OdO gal) and the replenis,h tank, level was 21,.2 Ill> .600 automati~cally~until~ 1) * The syst :em replenished launch sequence start &ithout any anomalies. The loss per hour was approximately 16.7 m3 (4,400 gal), and three inte rtank transfers were made _ After launch, the tank levels were 75,7 m3 (20,000 gal) in the main tank, and 40.9 m3 (10,800 gal) in the replenish tank.. The total usage of LOX l<as 42'9.3 m3 (i13,400 gal) for the AS-202 launch.
I

5.4..3

LH2 LOADING was satisfactory. were accomplished. No leaks were detected and

LH2 system loading a11 automatic sequences

The LH2 system inerting was accomplished on August 23, 1966. Preparation for LH2 loading began at 0900 EST on August 25, 1966 during the tcmsinal countdn~m. The LH, fill sequence was initiated at T-l hr and 45 nin or 0945 EST. Transfer line chilldob!n and storage tank pressurization started immediately, The storage tank gauge pressure increased from 10.7 N/cm2 (15.5 psig) to 46.2 N/cm2 (67 psig) in 4 min, and transfer line chilldown \;as completed after 7.5 min of flow. Initial flow started into :hc S-WE stage immediately after completion of transfer line

23 ehilldor<n. The S-IVB uas loaded at 0.023 m'/s (360 g m) to 6%, Fast fill started at T-l hr and 24 min cr 1006 EST, at 0.159 m5 J'S (2,520 gpm) to 96%, and was terminated at 1030 EST, Slow fill started immediately at 96% mass, at 100% mass at 1035 EST. at 0.021 m3/s (325 gpm), and was terminated Automatic replenishing was accomplished successfully, maintaining tbo S-IVB stage LH2 mass between 100 06 and 100 percent. The storage tank level before loading was 47G.O m3 (125,750 gal), as shown on the blockhouse liquid level indicator, At T-55 min and 100 % flight mass, the level of the storage tank was 98.4 m3 (26,000 gal).' From T-55 min to T-O, or for 1 hr and 41 min during replenish, 49.2 m3 (13,ooo~gal) 0f LH2 were used. When line drain was completed after launch, the storage tank level was 149.5 m3 (39,500 gal), A total-of 326.5 m3 (86,250 gal) was consumed for the AS-232 launch. No operational 5.4,4 anomalies occurred during LH2 loading,

COLD HELIUM LOADING

the cold helium spheres were Prior to the initiation of LH loading, prepressurized to 799.8 N/cm2 (1,l $0 psi), from the ground support equipment (GSE) cold gas system, to prevent them from collapsing as'they cooled Cold helium loading was during the initial part of the LH2 loading: The sphere pressure initiated when the LH2 92% mass level wasachieved. was increased to 2,123.6 N/cm2 (3080 psi) at 780 set after the start of cold helium loading. At liftoff, the spheres ,indicated 2,116.7 N/cm2 (3,070 psi), 5.4.5 AUXILIARY PROPULSION SYSTEM PROPELLANT LOADING :

The auxiliary propulsion system (APS) was loaded with fuel and oxidizer on August 21, 1966, for the APS confidence firing. Propellants were not unloaded, but were maintained in the tanks under a blanket pressure until the launch.

During oxidizer loading, the bellows extension (fill) rate for module 1 was 3.25 unimin (1.28 in/min) and for module 2 was 2.95 cm/min (1.16 in/mi.nj, The oxidizer tanks were loaded to 25.15 cm (9.90 in) and 25.12 cm (9.89 in), respectively, Fuelwas loaded in module 1 at a bellows extension rate of 3.07 (1.21 in/min) and in module 2 at 2.87 cm/min (1.13 in/minj, The fuel were loaded to 25.09 cm (9.88 in) and 25.12 em (9.89 in>, respectively. 5.4.6 S-IB STAGE PRO: ELLANT LOAD
cm/min

tanks

The propellant loading criteria for the S-IB-2 stage were based on the environmental conditions expected at launch. The propellant loading table provided, showed the LOX and fuel weights required at stage ignition for a range of fuel densities. Figure 5-l shows the temperature-to-density relationship of the fuel tanked in this stage.

The propellant tanking wigbts are listed in Tnblc: 5-11,x. Tilt: \::i]~iil,s ShOWl, for the required 2rC the LOX and fliisl~ vei::!li~ load at ignition, prescribed by the loading table. The reconstructed load WC d~~tv~-i;!i:l?d from propellant temperatures and discrete probe data tclcmctcl-isd durii::: flight, The discrete level instrumentation for this stage consisted oc fifteen probes in each propellant tank. me predicted values I?LC izhosc utilized in the operational flight trajectory (Ref. 1). Hovever, the loadAnalysis 0: t1ir. ing table uas based on repredicted requirements (Ref. 2). flight performance of ~-203 shoved thei rc-evaluation of clw S-11;-? The repredicccd data wre propulsion system performailce was necessary, based or? the latest table of the H-l engine influence coefficients and riominal performance parameters, The heating rate for determini,ag fuel temperature was also revised as a result of the S-II;-3 stage rcrformancf and the revised launch seqaence fcr AS-202. Reconstruction of the fuel iceight indicated a short,; load of 731.7 kg lbm). A thorough checkout of the PTCS,revealed a small quantity of fuel in the sensing line connected to the high pressure side of the manometer and pressure transducer. The fuel trapped in the sensing line most probably caused the oscillations and erratic r&dings of the computer and manometer prior to final fuel adjustment, and also the inability of the computer to display the accurate differential, pressures while the final fuel drain adjustment ::as being made. The fuel ~tanks, WPLI prcssurizcd during a prelaunch checkout operation. Helium, that normally purges the sensin,g line, was not flowins and the fuel i<ery likely entered the line at that time.
(1613

The bulk temperature of the LOX was r-jarmer than expected, resul.ting in a reconstructed LOX load of 1,297.7 kg,(2,561 lbm) less than FredictcJ. The PTCS measures the differential pressure only, between a sensing port near the bottom of the center LOX tank and thz ullage c: thi.s tan:;. Rcg rdless of the LOX temperature, the loading system will tank a constant weight of LOX above the lower sensing port in the center tank. However, the warmer LOX temperature resulted in less weight below the sensing port in the center tank and in the four outer tanks. The condition vas further aggravated by ullege pressure differences tF*at ccused a higher than prcdieted height differential between the center and outer tanks. The s-IB-2 aim?! vent sys tern. stage was the last to have the original LOX interconnect Subsequent stages have the neu LOX vent syste=, designed to provide ad~~qna tc ventins capacity fcr GDX to be dissipated without appreciably increasing per,iit the the LOX ullage pressure. in addifion, the neit vent system will LOX load to remain nearly constant, even if temperature diiferencfs e2:ist between the center and outer tanks. 5,4.3 s-im STAGE PROPFXL~~T LoAil load fro= 3t S-18 ignition ti;c P7.j syscca, c OrL?;:nd . eng.Ene

Table 5-W presents the S-3%~ ?r-opellant The best estiiiate includes loading deternined aaalysis, and "Lrajectorp reconstruction.

I
I

I
I

,,

Duviarioas in the dry weights of the inert rtagcs and the loaded spacecraft were all within the pL,--3dicted three sigma dc!viation limits. The total weighf of the dry whiclc was 22.2 kg (49 lbm) ICWI- than . . . the vehicle,wight xas determined to predicted. At ground xgnltron, Ibm) be 595,592,6 kg (1,319,671 Ibm), which is ~3,040;~,k~g'(6;~703 T1-A decrease is @rimarily dtie to,3,054.5 kg lower than predicted. (6,334 lim) less propellant loaded into the,S:IR stage. This Shortload consisted of 1,297.7 I-& (2,861 lbm) fess LOX And l,756.,8,k~: (3,,873 Ibm) I c:5s RP- 1 . Thrust buildup i~iass lqsscs wer&~,28:6 k:: ,(63 lbm] less than prcdic ted, giving a vehicle 'x+eight ar fi.rst~,moriqn of 592;214;6 kg (1,305,630 lbm). During mainstage bgrtiin,g,,the vehicle weight deviation incrcsased from 3,011.9 kg (6,640 lbm) at first,:niotioti to'5,167.3 kg {11,392 Ibm) at 130 seconds~ This inercas+ deviacion:ie the result of bighcr than predicted propellant f,l& r&t&,. Inboard ergine'cutoff signal occurred approximately two see earlier ,$han predictea,which effectively eliminated the neo_ative vehicle weight,'deviatioti; The vehicle weight for this event (IECO) x+as 199,037.l kg (438,802,'1bm), &ich was ii26.8 kg (941 lbm) higher than predict&d. The v$liclr weight at outbosrd engine cutoff signal was 192,~,72?.9 kg (424,897 7hi1) or 87*8 kg (1,825 lbm) louer than predict,ed., The higher mass loss between inboard and outboard engine cutoff signals ,is attributable to a 0.9 5ec longer rime increment,, The second flight sta,:e weight at J-2 engine'start command '\qas kc (3:5,938 1~) and at 90%-,thrust ~level was 1113,0X1.6 kg lbrn). These weis: :-s were 4.9 kg (11 lbn), ar.d 22,.,6 kg '(50 lbn) higher than predicted, Mass losses during the' S-IVB, stage pocslrild flight wre 693.5 k,; (1,529 lb=] less than predicted, gtijing a whicle weight, at cutoff signal, 715.1 kg (1,579 lbm) higher than an tic ipa ted. Thrust dec-y i:sses and ullage, gases vented 'were 17.2 kg (35 lbn) hipher than predicted, and the vehicle rieight of 37,466.3 kg (81,599 Ibm) a.t spacecraft separtion command was 700.4 kg (l,Sli& ibm) 'more than predicted. 'The separated spacecraft weight of 20,175.S kg (44,iSO lbn) was 87.9 kg (192 lbm) less than predicted.
143,307.O (31,5,%1

Vehicle flieht sequence mass summary is prcsenwd in Table 6-I. Derailed vehicle masses are tabulated in Table &II. Graphical rfpresentaticns of this dara, center of gravity, and mass moment of inc!irtia histories, with respect to tine, are illustrated in Figures 6-i and 6-2 for the S-I&stage and S-IVB stag& powred flights, resp<<cti-Jely, 6.3 CEXSER OF GK&vITy $JZD *lmsENT oi; &RT-& A@J&ysIs

Evaluation or' the vehicle S-II3 p~~?ribd t'li$~ indicat?d

longitudinal center of gravity during that the CG x~;fs forward of the predicted

-j

1 i1

in, , ;, : h 1 : -

; , -

,i !

TABtE

6.12~

VFHLCLE MASSES (KLU~CRAMS)

LAZ msegc Gas Aft Frame Sepolecion and umge componancr IfSloge Rocket cesecr Ullega Rocket Ctaln MS Pmpsllenc Mydrnusic 011 N:ltrogen ltydreultc 5aeervoir Envimm?ntal Control Fluldr elim Pnellmet~c esbJm-LOX Praesnt:e suppsy

36

35

T
60

2.2

1.6

30

1.3

1.0

3s

value. This deviation Mass the S-IB stage. operation, reflecting

was caused by less propellant moments of inertia were lower the lower vehicle weights.

mass during

onboard S-IB stage

Longitudinal center of gravity travel during S-IVB flight approximated the predicted values. The rearward of the center or gravity, at cutoff signal, was a result predicted propellant residuals, brought abour. by an earlier predicted shutdown signal. Mass moments of inertia during stage operation approximated the predicted values,, The noted at cutoff signal is directly attributable to higher residuals. Me ight , center dry stages and the presented in Table of gravity; vehicle at ~-III. and moment sjzxificant

stage powered displacement of higher than than S-NE higher value propellant

of inertia data for events during flight

the are

under herein system

ikight data presented in this section acceleration of one standard g. The conforms to the Project Apollo mass (Ref, 4)1

are weights of masses sign convention utilized properties coordinate

7.0

TRAJECTORY

The ,fehiclc The actual trajectory of AS-202 was close to nominal. was launched on an azimuth of 100 deg east of north and, aftc? lC.3 set of vertical flight, rolled into the flight azimuth of 105 deg east of north. The total space-fixed velocity was ?O.S m/s higher than nominal At S-IVR cutoff at OECO and 0.6 m/s higher than nominal at S-IVR cutoff, the actual altitude f,as O,Obkm lower than nominal and the surface range The cross range velocity deviated was 38.4 km shorter than nominal. 0.4 m/s to the left of nominal at S-IVB cutoff, the vehicle's total space-fixed At S-IVB/SCM separation, was 1.6 m/s higher than nominal. Altitude ~+as 0.10 km lowr and surface range was 30.46 km shorter than nominal. velocity than nominal

A theoretical free flight trajectory of the separated S-IR booster indicates that the impact ground range was 17.11 km greater than nominal. Impact, assuming the tumbling booster remained intact, occurred at 536.8 seconds. The S-IVB stage failed structurally as a consequence of the Loss of telemetry occurred at 941.2 seconds. S-IVB common bulkhead test. The surface range at this time was 3708.21 km and the altitude was 246.14 km. 7.2 TRACKING DATA UTILIZATION

from.first motion through S-IVD/CSM Tracking data were available separation. Tracking data, excluding radars, showed deviations between the various systems of less than 10 m in position components until 235 seconds. After 235 sac, GLOTRAC was the only precision tracking system that furnished data. The postflight shorin in Table 7-I. trajectory TABLE 7-I Time Interval 0.73 - 29
29 - 125

was established DATA UTILIZATION

from the data sources

(set> Least ODOP squares

Data Source curve fit of ODOP

125 - 160 160 - 598.7

GLOTRAC Sta. 1 reflecting telemetered guidance data through cutoff areas Best estimate trajectory

42

A11 tracking data were smoothed and transformed from the crockin;i point to the vohi~le center of gravity to provide a common reference for all tracking systems. Telemetered guidance data were used as a model for obtaining the proper velocity and acceleration profiles through the transient areas of Mach 1, S-IB stage cutoffs, and S-IVB stage cutoff. These data were adjusted in magnitude to match either OWP, GLOTBAC Sta. depending on data being used in the 1, or the computed trajectory, particular transient area. The best estimate trajectory, beginning at 160 set, utilized the telemetered guidance velocities as the generating parameters to fit data from GLOTRAC Sta. 1 and 7 different radar tracking stations. These data were tit through an 18 term guidance error model. The tracking data were used as observations in this solution. The solution was terminated Comparisons between chebest estimate trajectory at S-IVB/CSM separation, and data from all tracking systems reveals consistency and good agreement. GLOTRAC provided the only high precision data available after 235 seconds. The GLOTRAC data and the best estimate trajectory agree to within 40 m in position components. Although GLOTR4C data were not used in the final trajectory, due to late arrival, the differences between GLGrRAC and the computed trajectory are insignificant for most evaluation purposes. 7.3 TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS and nominal altitude, surface range, and cross range for the powered flight, are presented in Figure 7-l. The actual total earth-fixed velocities are shown in Figure 7-2. COlTIthe actual and nominal parameters at the three cutoff events Table 7-11. The nominal trajectory is presented in

Actual launch vehicle and nominal pa-&sons of are shown in Reference 1.

Through the major portion of the powered flight the altitude was higher than nominal and the surface range was greater than nominal. The total inertial acceleration shown in Figure 7-3, was greater than nominal for both the S-LB and S-IVB powered flight phases. The combined burn time of the S-IB and the S-IVB stages was 13.73 set shorter than nominal. The S-IB stage was responsible for 1.13 set of the difference and the S-IVB stage for 12.60 seconds. A major cause of the early S-IW cutoff could be attributed to a late engine mixture The total space-fixed ratio shift and high S-IB stage cutoff velocity. velocity at S-IV6 cutoff, as given by the guidance computer, was 0.6 m/s higher than nominal. The shorter burn time explains the 38.4 km deficit I*, surface range at S-IW cutoff. The actual altitude at S-IVB cutoff was near nominal, being oniy O-O& km low.

Surface 2000

Range Altitude

(km) (km)

43

s-;YB stage

cross Rsnge (km)

15GO

1000

I
500

Range Time
Surface Range 6 Altitude (km) S-IB Stage

(54

)
Cross Range (m)

400

44 Earth-Fixed Velocity (m/set> S-IVB Stage s-m3 co

4Opoo

3000

1000 140
Earth-Fixed moo

220
Velocity

300
(m/set>

380 Range Tim

s-m stage

540 (see)

700
IECO OECO

780

1500

loo0

40

60

80

loo

l&J

Rsnge Time FIGURE 7-2

(see)

EAFZH-FITFill KUCCiTY

TABLE 7..I1

ClTl!OFF CONDITIONS

Cross Range Velocity

(m/s)

-8.6

2.3

-10.9

-8.5

2.5

-11.0

1 201.0

201.4

-0.4

90 G.87

30.89 101

Ea,rth-Fixed OECO
S-XVB

VeLocity,Accuracy f 0.3 m/s

CO I 1.0 m/s

Altit;lde

Accuracy

OECO S-In3

co

f 30 m 2 200 m

S-IVB Stage
Total

Inertial

Acceleration

(&?C2)

i Range Time

(set)

Total

Inertial

Acceleratf.on

I (m/s& !

S-IB Stage I I I I

40

30

10

0
[ Range Time FfGURF: 7-3 (SW]

TOFAL INERTIAL

ACCKLERATION

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

The S-IVB cutoff signal ws given by the guidance computer at The velocity increments imparted to the vehicle sub588.i7 seconds. seqtienr tc, t!lc guidance cutoff signal are given in T:sbie 7-III for the S-IB an<,; S-IVB stage at OECO and S-IW guidance ,cuto: ff, respectively. TAljLE i-111 VELOCITY GAIN (m/s) Actual I

Mach number a?d dynamic pressure are show 3 ~parameters were calculated using measured, m ieteo aiti..udc of 57.5 km. Above this altitzude t sheu Atinosphcrc was c,sed, Cainparisons tixes are given of actual and nominal in Table 7-W. paramett

The th.?oretical free flight trajectory .,for, S-IVIB stages used initial conditions from the !;eferer separation. There rms no tracking coverage -, 0%; S-TV3 Slx?l'C* A nominal tumbling drag Cc lefficie: -S-IB reentry phase. The calculated S-IB im-pact and ground track, relative to :i:e launch site, are st

The S-TWICSK separation conditions were obtained from an extension 0:' ;hc co;nput"d best estimate S-IVB powered flight trajectory. The least sq:13rES ii!: to r11cz tracking data through the guidance errormodel, using t1c.a g~,~i,danc~ as t;hc generating parameters, was performed to separation. Grand Turk (7.18), :%ntigua (91.18), and Grand Bahaina (3.lG and 3.18) ra&rs pri\-\:id& 1-cj~i.i'nle data tu use as observations during this short CiXIST pi::?s;*. The ~;uidaacc data used velocity changes imparted to the schi,clr as ii result ofventing and thrust~decay. Table 7-V shows a so:np:ari's<>;: 'n,-t+;een the actual and nominal S-IV%/CSM separation parameters.

50

51

TABLE 7-v

Parameter Range Time (see) Space-Fixed Altitude Surface Velocity (km) Range (Ian] (m/s)

I Actual I 598.70

I I 1

Nominal
612.52 6798.6

Act-Nom

1 -13.821
1.6

1 6800.2

52

8.0

S-IB

PROPULSION

The S-IB flight.

propulsion

system

performed

sa,tisfacto:

rily

throughout

On the basis of flight and specific impulse were

S2SpeCtiV2ly.

stage~,thrus, t,propellant ,flowrate, simulation: I%'highkr than predicted,, l.Ol%, 0.55% and 0.4: than predicted. IECO by the tank F2.

Inboard engine cutoff (IECO) occurre d 2,,Wsecearlier Outboard engine cutoff (OECO), was iniZated 311)Usec after actuation of the fuel depletion sensor in the Imnp of fuel

late ,S-IB-2 Kesequcncing of the flight eve nts resulted'from Its were loaded. performance predictions for which the propella! Based on these repredictions, IECO occurred only 1~2; 7 seconds early.> The fuel and LOX pressurization systems operate! d,satis,factorily. consecutive The helium blowdown system was used successfully for the third 'flight in the fuel pressurization systems. M' " Propellant predicted. All utilization systems was satisfactory functioned and was within 0.21% of

mechanical movie after

satisfactorily. stage ,were eject :ed

The tw successfully 811 S-II?

cameras at the top of the S-IB recording S-IBIS-IVB separation.

PROPULSION PERFORHANCE

TI-o scparntc analyses :iere used to determine the S-IB engine method of dete-rmining the S-IB propulsion system p~?rformanc~ * The first fli@t performance was reconstruction of the telemetered flight data iii:11 thv ?!33:li 117 cnmputer prosram.' Calculated propellant residuals The Kark IV program is a were also used as inputs to tile program. stage propulsion system utilizing mathcmnrical model of the Saturn first :S rable of icfluencc coefficients to determine engine performance. A program option, RPH match, was used to arrive at engine power levels and propellant flomates. The second method utilized a trajectory simulation to fencrate multipliers that were enforced on the results of en:;inc analysi~s so that the resulting calculated trajectory fitted t1,<; &<iCT\,& Cl*ajpctQry.

53

4s a result of the S-IB-3 propulsion system pcrfonna?lcc evaluation, and updated engine influence coefficient, a reevaluation of the S-IB-2 predicted performance (repredicted) was required. The performance parametersobtained through the Mark IV reconstruction proyram for S-IR-2 are compared with these repr<xdic?cd parameters since the stage propellant loading and event sequencingwere based on these later predictions. The heating rate for determining fuel cem?crature was 21~0 revised as a stase performance result of the S-IB-3 and the revised launch sequence for AS-202, Flight simulation comparisons are made with the original predictions (Ref5) since they were used to establish ths preflight trajectory.

I'& automatic ignition All eight H-l engines igaited satisfactorily. sequence, wbicb schedules the engines to start in pairs with a 100 ms delay between each pair, ber_an with ig':ition command at -P.&i8 ceconds. signals are shown in the top The recorded individual engyne ignition portion of Table S-1, The bottom portion of Table 8-I presents thrust chamber ignition, main propellant ignition (PC prime), and Thrust OK Pressure Switch (TOPS) pickup times, referenced to the individual engine's ignition signal. The chamber pressures at the thrust OK pressul-c switch pickup times are also shown in this table. These times and pressures indicate a satisfactory transition to mainstage on each engine. Individuai engine thrust buildup and -tage thrust buildup are presented in Figure 8-1. The staga thrtist sho-G~- is the sum of the engine thrusts and does not account for engine cant angles. individual

S-IB stage performance throughout flight was satisfactory. Figure 8-2 shows inflight stage longitudinal thrust and specific impulse determined from anaiysis of engine measurements. Stage inflight performance parameters are shown in Table 8-n. In this table, comparisons ATE' made to both the predicted and repredicted values taken between fi--st notion Tb~ repr;dicted values were determined after the preflight and IECO, operational trajectory was established but prior to lnunch. S-IB stai"' propellant mixture an6 flow characteristics are shown in Figure 8-3. Stage LOX and fuel flowrates axe shown in Figure 8-h. The performance parameters listed in Table 8-11 and in the above referenced figures axe not reduced to sea level conditions, Reducing the thrus:., specific impulse, and propellant flowrate in Table S-II to sea level conditions yields the values in Table S-III. The higher deviations from (UFP er portion the fuel density than predicted performance cannot be attributed co predicted propellant densities or punp inlet prc:ssurcs of Figure 8-S). The average LOX pump inlet density and were both lower than predicted and are shorwn in TabIt' 8-11.

TABLE 8-I

ENGINE START CXARACTElUSTlCS

Engine

Position

Time ngine 'osicion /

from Individual

Engine

Ignition

Signal
ES-I

3 1,118 424.7 616 534 as5 1,079 4~3.6 600 1,200 418.'5 607 1,148 418.5 607 1,067 413.0 599 1,034 413.6 600
Time (ns)

558 -~

901

890

~1,066 413.0 599 I 1,044 426.1 618 1,213 426.8 619 ' 1,033 425.4 617 I

1,067 413.0 599 1,045 426.1 6?8 1,213 426.8 619 1,034 425.4 617

P,

(N/C& (psi) 517 850

1,215 425.8 619

1,044

lz34.4 630

I I

I I

i -2.0

---

Actual Predicted

Thrust

(1000

lb}

6000

7000 i-

20 Specific Impulse (WC)

40

60

80 Range Time

100 (set)

+--* 0 20 FIGLFRE S-2

I 40

I 60

I 80

I 100

-L-d

140

160

S-fB STAGE LOEGIITUDINAL

TEFZST AND SPECIFIC

IMPULSE

TABLE

8-11.

S-iB

STAGI! INFLXIIT

PERFORMANCE PASAMET~ERS

% Deviation 7,704,075 1,731,94,5 279A2 29,367 6,602 -0.60 I 0.38 -0.21 ~

Repredicted 7,739,224 1,739,,848 279.53 ~

Plight Devia,tion From Repredictcd -5,787 -1,301 -0.71 I

% Deviation -0.07

-0.25

6,198.G

36.59

kc /m3 Lb/&

802.076 50.072

58 Mixture 2.30 Ratio (iOX/Fuel) ----Actual Predicted

2.25

2.30

2.15

20

40

60

80 Range Time

100 . (set)

120

140

160

Total

Flot.!rate

(k&/s;

Total

Flourate

(IS/s) 7000

1000
20 60

80 Ranse Time

20 (WC) &XTURE

140

160

FIGUE

8-3

S-IB

SjCACE PRO?EZIAh'T

FAT13 AND FLOhaATE

-Actual ----Prcdic:ed

20

40

TABLE

8-1,X

AVEFvIGE

S-LB

STAGE

SW

LEXEL

YROPLILSION

PAXAMETERS

Note:

Rcsul,ts

are average

idlight

values

reduced

to

sea

level

conditions.

Density 1130

(kg/m3) . 70.4

1125

1120

69.6

1105 ow

I !
----dr-$i---k Lange Time b 100 (set) 120 14 Engine Thrust (1000 N)

Total

Lonsitudinal

8250

8000

-----A

,.*. ..: / .:. , ;.:*;, / ,: ,I

7250

..< ..I 7 ;; r.c.$

Simulation . ..--........Reprediction,Posti;igitf ---Prediction

I Recnnstruction I

7000

6750

6 Range Time FIGbiFZ 8-5 LOX DE3SITi

80 (see)

100 EI;GISE

120 THRUST

140

A:ZD LONGITUDINAL

62 in conjunction with slight The combined effect of these two variations, in differences from predicted pump inlet pressures, should have resulted 53,379 N (12,000 lbf) lower than repredicted thrust. Predicted propulsion performance values for 3-IB-2 were bae.ed on Influence the long duration stage, static test. engine data obtained during coefficients were used to calculate the effects of,propellant,densities, temperatures, and pump inlet pressures on engine~perfo,rmance during These influence coefficients reflect, the results of recent testing flight, and incljude a change in ambient pressure effecton engine"perfbrmance,. The revised influence coefficients were also,used to gene$ite the revised predictions or the repredicted values for ST-IBL2. ,:, Table 8-111 presents a summary--reduced to se a level conditions-of the average values and deviations of thrust, fl owrate, and specific ts at ,liftoff and impulse. Also included in this table are vehicle'weigh. Values from the flight simulation method are,com, pared with IECO. postflight engine analysis, predicted, and repredi cted values. Flight simulation increased engine analysis thrust 1>y 0.56% and reduced flowrate This resulted in a specific impulse,inc rease of 0.57%. by o.ol%. The axial force coefficient resulting from this solution, a long with the predicted axial force coefficient for AS-202, is prejen ted in Section 19. The lower curve of Figure 8-5 depicts levelsof to tal longitudinal engine tllr-ust , including the longitudinal component of the tl irbine are the predicted thrust ; repredicted cxhaus t . The curves presented thrust using an Ipdated engine model, postflight engine thrum St as derived through an engine analysis which incorporates telemetered propulsion measurements (reconstructed) and the thrust derived through flight simulation. The repredicted and reconstructed thrust levels Wf UC :lmost i:lentical and are presented as one curve. The S-IB stage received inboard engine cutoff signal 2.03 set earlier than predicted. The total earth fixed velocity at IECO was 9.15 m/s higher than predicted. The flight simulation results were used in an attempt to explain the time and velocity deviations, 'To explain the veIocity deviation, an error analysis was made to determine the contributing parameters and the magnitude of the velocity deviation caused by each of thcsk parameters, Table 8-W lists the various error contributors and the cutoff velocity deviations associated with each.

63

TABLE 8-W Errol-

VELOCITY DWIATION ___---

ANALYSIS Dev. Fm. Prea.

Contributors

Liftoff Weight (-0.52%) Total Thrust (1.01%) Total Propellant Flowrate Axial Force Coefficient Meteorological Data Change in Burn Time (-2.03 Total Contribution

(0.58%) set)

Since inboard engine cutoff the only quantities which the level of fuel i contributed to the deviation between the predicted and actual cutoff and the "nt" contributions made by each. The "difference" noted in Table 8-V is considered insignificant. TABLE 8-V Error TlME DEVIATION ANALYSIS DeG. (Act-Pred) A t (set) -2.03 -0.42 0.52 kg (1000 lbm) -1.93 -2.03 0.10 I I

time

Contributors

Initial Fuel Load (-1.37%) Fuel Flowrate (0.29%) Fuel Level Cutoff Fuel load bias was 453.6 Total Contribution Observed Difference

The cutoff sequence on the S-IB stage began at 136.52 set with the actuation of a fuel level cutoff probe. Inboard engine cutoff (IECO) was initiated by the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) 3.C~5 set IECO occurred 2.03 SEC ezrlier than predicted. later at 139.57 seconds. The shorter than predicted b.Jrn time to IECO was the result of a lower than required fuel load and a higher than predicted fuel flowrate. The actuation of a fuel level cutoff probe, instead of a LOX level cutoff probe as predicted, resulted from the 732 kg (1,513 lbm) fuel short-load. Although the combined effects of the lower than repredicted fuel and LOX densities produced essentially the repredicted flight mixture ratio (0,04% difference), the propellant loading tables required a 0.42% higher than rcpredicted load mixture ratio (LOX/Fuel) for the flight fuel density. The 732 kg (1,613 lbm) fuel short-load and the lowr than repredicted LOX density increased the total load mixture ratio deviation from 0.42% to 0.55%. This condition cannot be considered abnormal, because the propellant loading tables are not designed to compensate for variations in LOX density. Thrust decay on each inboard engine was normal. 'The total inboard engine cutoff impulse was 1,341,139 N-s (301,500 lbf-s). Inboard and outboard engine thrust decays are shown in Figure 8-6. Outboard engine cutoff (OSCO) was initiated at 143.47 set by actuation of the fuel depletion sensor located in the sump of fuel tad< F2. It was expected that outboard engine cutoff would be initiated by TOPS deactuation when LOX starvation occurred. The expected time differential between IECO and OECO was 3.0 seconds. The actual time differential was 3.90 seconds. Thrust decay was satisfactory on each of the outboard engines. Total cutoff impulse for the outboard engines was 956,616 N-s (221,500 lbf-s). The outboard engine thrust decay and cutoff impulse conforms to the shape and magnitude of a LOX starvation cutoff. S-2.2 INDIVIDUAL ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS

The performance >f all-eight engines was satisfactory, Thrust ievcls for all engines were lower than repredicted, with an average dr?crcsse of 721N (162 lbf) or 0.07% per engine. The average deviation from rcpredicted specific impulse was 0.70 set or 0.25% lower than rcpr<dic ted. Figure 8-7 shows the average deviation from repredicted thrust and specific impulse for engines 1 through 8. The difference in deviations from repredicted between total stage specific impulse (0.71 src) and individual engine specific impulse (0.70 see) is due to the difference in definitions of specific impulse in ea c h c a 5c * In the derivation of stage specific impulse, the total propellants leaving the stage and the longitudinal thrust are considered;

2400

4000 --r80 3200

Thrust (1000 N, Inboard Engines Cutoff Impulse 1,341,134 B-S I' I 600 t-

800

\ L ,;~I,
11

-i

0 L

139.5

139.7

139.9

140.1

140.7 143.5 140.3 Rauge Time (WC) Outboard engines 1, I

Thrust (101X B) 4000 c /

'

' DECO

Average

Deviatio,n

Fran &predicted - l,O, 600 -2,353 -1,041 -234

Thrust 6,908 1,553

(%) 7,482 1,682 -3,972 -893 -1,357 -305 -8,038 -1.807 (N) (lbf)

0 u5

-0.5

-1.0 3 4 Engine Number, 5 6 7

8

Average 0.5

Deviation -0.59

From Repredicted
-0.90

Specific -0.56,'

Impulse '~ -0 i.54;

(%) ,-0.77 -0.72 ;0.83 (set)

-0.72

-0.5

2 FIGURE 8-7'

3 'Engine INDIVIDUAL

4~ Number

ENGINE PEWOF24ANCE PARAMETERS

67

while, in the individual engine specific the propellants burned by the engine and The total propellants leaving the stage engine, since some propellants are used

impulse calculations, only engine thrust are considcrcd. are not all burned by the for gearbox lubrication,

Individual engine flight performance data from the Mark IV reconstruction program were reduced to Sea Leve'l Standard turbopump comparison of flight performance with prcinlet conditions to permit dieted and preflight test performance. The reduction rjf engine data to Sea Level Standard conditions isolates performance variations due to engine characteristics from those attributable to engine inlet and environrr.ental conditions. The following discussion applies to the sea ,level performance at test data, '30 seconds. Analysis of postflight data, along with static indicates a pronounced increase in sea level performancc,occurring during with a less pronounced'increase occurring the first 30 set of flight, ,between this time and cutoff. The increase in ,soa level performance during the first 30 see has been attributed,,to non-equilibrium engine The sea operation and has been accounted for in the prediction. and mixture ratio,are 'compared with, level thnlst, specific impulse, ,predicted and repredieted values at a time slice of 30 set ,in Table At this time, the sea level thrust for engines 1 through 8 8-V-I. differed from repredicted by 1.03, -0.78, 0.48,,1.49, 1.48, 0.32, 0.36 and -0.04 percent, respectively. 8.3 S-IB PROPELLA?JT UTILIZATION

Propellant usage is the ratio of propellant consumed to propellant loaded, and is an indication of the propulsion systein performance and the capability of the propellant loading system to load the proper Propellant usage for the S-IB stage was satisfactory propellant r.:eights. and within 0.21% of the repredicted value. The repredicted and actual (reconstructed) percentages of loaded propellants utilized during the flight are shown in Table &-VII. TABLE g-VII PROPELLANT UTIiIZATION

TABLE E-VI

AS-202

AVERAGE INDXVIDUAL

ENGINE IXRFOIIMANCE

AT 30 SEOONDS

The planned modi of OK0 !<as by LOX starvation. The I.,GX ::l;ci fuc '1 level cutoff probe heights and flight sequence settings WIETCset co between any cutoff probe actuation and yield a 3.1 set time interval IECO, and a planned time interval between IECO and CEC@ of 3.C seconds. OECO was te be initiated by the deactuation of two of the three t~hrust OR press-are switches on any outboard engine as a result of LOX srsrvation. It was assumed that approximately 0.2% m3 (75 gallons) of LOX in the outboard suction lines were usable. The backup timer (flight sequencing) was set to initiate OECO 10.1 set after level censor actuation; this essentially eliminated the backup timer as a mode of OECO. To prevent fuel starvation, fuel depletion cutoff probes were located in the F:! and F4 container swnps. The center LOX tank sump orifice was 48.3 & 0.013 cm (19.0 2 0.005 in> in diameter, atid cetiter,LOX tank level was repredicted to be 7.6 cm (3.0 in) higher ~:han tlxe LOX level in the outboard tanks at IECO. Data used in evaluating LIZ S-IB propellant vsagc consisted of 15 discrete probes in each tank; a continuous level probe, in the bottom of each tank; cutoff level sensors in tanks 02, 04, F2, and F4; and fuel depletion probes in the F? and F4 sumps, The cutoff .-

sequence

on the S-13

stage,was

initiated

by a signal

Height

in)

70

28

60

-_-

24

50

20

40

16

I
Outer LOX Tank-

30

20

10

Theoret

al

Tank OEGO

0 :143.471

-10

-4

-20

-8

-30,

71

AS n result of the S-IB-1 cutoff, a modification was made co one of the fwl depletion sc~:sors. The sensor in tank F4 sump was fitted with a nylon tube which extended 1.91 cm (0.75 in) past the sensor tip. This was done to detern$ne the effectiveness of shroudins the sensor ir, order- to make it insensitive to the bubbles which wouid ordinarily Inspection of the fuel depletion sensor ca-cse a dl-y indication. Lndications in tanks F2 and F4 shows no premature actuations, xihich indicates a lack of bubbles. Bubble formation is not predictable and is thought to'be a function of the sump vibration environment. The shrcuded sensor in tank FS actuated 210 ms later than the unshrouded one in tank FE, Data show the levels in F4 to,be hiaher than those _ in F2, which accounts for approximately 100'ms of this 210 rns time differential. The actuarion response rime,differenc.J f&t) agrees we!? with laboratory tests. This At is not detrimental and it shows that the shrouded sensor operated as expected. tank The cutoff bottom are probe signal times and settin, shown in Table 8-VIII. 0 heights from theoretical

TABLE S-VIII

CUTOFF PROBE ACTIVATI~~~CHAZWCTERISTICS

8.6 8.t.i

S-IB

PRESSilXIZaTIOX

SYSTEMS SYSTEM

FUEL PRESSURIZATION

The fuel tank pressurization system operated satisfactorily during the entire flight. This was the third flight to use the helium blowdown system which was introduced on 85-201. The measured absolute ullage pressure is compared with the predicted pressure in the upper portion of Figure 8-9. There is generally good agreement between the wo curves. The higher than predicted ullage pressure for the first portion of the fliiht can be attributed to a higher than predicted initial sphere pressure and to the cycling of the fuel pressurizing valves during the ignition transient. This cyciing of the pressurizing valves also explains the lower uilage pressure at the end of flight, since less heliun flowed into the tanks due to the shorter blowdown time. The 32&4ya ullage whhich was 5.504 a3 (1,454 gal) was prepressurized to 22.3 ~/cm (32.3 psi) in 2.5 seconds.

72 Ullagc Pressure (N/d) Pressure

--

(psi)

30

-==--%=

10 1 0

I 20

I 40

:psi)

2oQ) \\ I \\ \\ \
1500 1 \ \

2500
__-

,_.--,.---

~
1

/ L,,

1000 t

,,.-,,,, ,,.",,.. i,---- -,--. 2 j

1500

/ $ I-

iOO0

I so :imt

The helium sphere pressure is S!KIW in th@ lower portion of Figure S-l): The initial sphere pressure was approsi.along rl:ith the predicted curve. (3,000 psi) nately 2,103 N/cm2 (3,050 psi), 3s cnnipdred to 2,06SN!cd the ClOSliITe of IrIle plT~SsIil~iZi.ll~ predicted, The agreement is good consileri.ng which raises the pressure curve. valves during ignition transient, The absolute ullage pressure was ciwipared to those pressures measured The AS-201 and AS-202 system configurations on AS-2Gl and AS-203 flights. by eliI2 rcdueetl were exactly the same, t.;hile the AS-203 system diffflxd TIE illicial sphere helium storage volume of the new titanium spheres, System operaLion ws pressure for all three stages was approximately equal. the same for AS-202 and ~~-203, but on ,?j-201 the fuel pressurizing valves The agre-::nent Setween AS-202 and AS-203 opened once Grid remained open, due ,to the pressure switch data shcws that the difference in operation, cycling, has a greater effect on ullags prcssurP than does the storages capacity of the nex titanium spheres. The differences in fuel liquid l~~?els from,tank to tank were as expected The maximum' difference betwe and compared well with previous S-IB i:ights. At 13s SEC, lrhc in) at apprasimately 10 seconds. Fl and F3 was 15.8 cm (,,4 difference in the file1 levels between rhese CWO, tanks was about 2-S cm (1 in). These levels were determined from the <discrete probemeasuretients. On this stage, the instrument compartment pressure was measured, alloving a determination of the differential pressure (AP) across the upper hulkDesign critfria require a positive prpssure of at heads in tanks Fl and F2. least 0.69 ~/cm2 differential (1 psid) in the fuel tanks, relative to the A bleed orifice in the instrument compartment skin instrument compartments. The AP across the bulkhead varied allows this requirement to be satisfied. (15.7 psid) at liftoff to 6.2 N/cm2 from a maximum of 10.8 N/cm 2 differential which is well above the required pressure. differential (9.0 psid) at OECO, 8.4.2 LOX TAlW PRESSURIZATION SPSTW

The LOX tank pressurization system performed satisfactorily during As-202 flight, The system configuration was the same as that of S-IB-1; the heat exchanger orifice sizes and the fully closed stop settings however, of the GOX flow control valve (GFCV) were the same as those on S-IB-3. Pressurization of the LOX tanks provides increased structural rigidity and adequate LOX pump inlet pressures. Helium from a ground source is used to provide prelaunch pressurization. From vehicle ignition command to liftoff, an increased helium flow is used to maintain adequate LOX rank pressure during engine start. The prepressurization level is controlled by a pressure switch and is 41.4 + 1.0 N/cm2 solenoid valve. The ambient setting of the sxitch (60 2 1.5 psi) for actuation and 38.3 N/cm2 (55.5 psi) nininw? for tieThe prepressurization level satisfies the requirement of a actuation.

74

minimum Gf 55.2 N/cm2 (80 psi) pressure at the LOX pump inlet for cnginc s t 3 r t _ The minimum pressure, with the exception of a short time interval during start, will occur at OIXO and should bc 34.5 f I.7 N/em2 (50 2 2.5 psi). lieved In case of over-pressurization or vented by two methods: during flight, excess gases will be rc-

(I,) A pressure switch set at 4G.5 2 1.0 N/cm2 (67.5 + 1.5 psi) which controls a solenoid valve to open a 10.2 cm (4in) vent an?? relief valve. (2) Two 10.2 cm (4 in) vent and relief uf 41.4 2 3.5 N/cd gauge (GO 2 5 psig). valves with cracking pressures

LOX tank pressure during flight is compared in the,up@er portion of Figure S-10 with the predicted LOX tank pressure; which:wns derived, from static test data. There was a slight oscillat,ion atabout 20 ,sec that was due to the GFF\I response to the tank pressure dip during ,the ignit,ion transient, A masimum pressure of 36.5 N/cm' (53 psi.) occurred at'35 set and then gradually decayed to 33.1 N/cm2 (48 psi) at OECO.: Cutboard LOX tan;: pressure was approximately 0.52 ~/cm2 (0.75 psii) .ower than center' tank pressure between 30 and 120 seconds, Tank pressure was also lower during the static test due to a lower GOX flowate that was apparently caused by lover, LOX pump outlet pressure. In both cases, the GFCV responded~co?rectly and sys,tem'operation was satisfactory, The GFCV position is shown in the lower portion of Figure 8-9. ,'The valve started to close at ignition, reached the fully,closed position at 6 SfC, and then opened slightly at 12 set to compensate for the initial dip in tank pressure. The GFCV v,as in the fully closed position from 20 to approximately 214 seconds, It began to open at 114 set, when the ullage pressure was 34.1 i\'icm2 (49.5 psi), and reached 12% open at TECO. Also shown in the lower portion of Figure X-10 is the position of the valve in the static test, The vc;lw opened at GO set when the ullage pressure was 35.2 N/cm2 (51 psi), but 7.~35decreasin g at a faster rate than in flight. This position trace is shifted upward approximately 4x due to the calibration procedure of thr static test measurement. The initial ullage was 1.69% or 4.296 m3 This MS pressurized to 40.13 ~/crn~ (58.2 psi) in approximately (1,735 gal). 62 SccGnds _ The GDX relief valve 2 temperature during flight was higher than GOX relief c:&-e ! temperature and also higher than either valve temperature on S-IB-1. :%t liftoff; both temperatures were 144.26%; while, at OECO, relief v:ilvc 2 was lO.i*l; higher. This indicates a very slight leak beginning sh~~rtl,\- ?iftc?r liftoff. The effect of this leak on system performance was rlcgLi&i, lc * Dorii.g the countdoxn, the closed indication from the other valve, GOX relief 1, 7~35 lost: hor.~ever, it functioned properly in flight. New r<,li?f ~alres have been incorporated on all stages slibsequent to S-U-2 [re<-;;i;s<: <>f tl><- iei><je:>c\- of the old valves to leak.

75

Center

LOX Tank Pressure

(N/m*)

Pressure

(psi)

30 I 25 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Range Time (set) 100

GOX Flow 100

Controi

Valve

Position

(%)

80

60 I

-20

20 FIGIfRe 8-10

40

63

80

100

120

140

160

LOX PRESSuRI2.A!I'ION SYSTM CHAFWZCERISTICS

76 8.4.3 COhTROL PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM

The S-IB control pressure system supplied GN2 at a regulated pressure of 524 to 531 xi/cm2 (760 to 770 psi) to pressurize the H-~1 engine turbopump gear boxes and purge the LOX pump seals and fiveradiation calorimeters. Regulated pressure was also utilized to operate two 10.2 cm (4 in> diameter LOX vent and relief valves and one 17.8 cm (7 in) diameter LOX vent c ---'-.d.LVe, and to close the LOX and fuel prevaives at IECO and 'OECO., The S-IB-2 control pressure system was ess'entially S-In-3 system except that one 0.03 m3 (1 ft3) 'fiberglass on, S-M-3' to to the existing 0.03 m3 (1 ft3) system flow for the purge of a fifth radiation calorimeter. the sa,me as the spher 'e was added supply the additional

System performance was satisfactory throughoutfli; The flieht @t. ,sphere pressure history shows the final sphere,prc assure st OECO to be within 51.7 ~/cm* (75 psi} or 3.6% of the expected vaiuc'. This is' within the predicted band and is considered satisfactory. It 1~s noted that she initial sphere pressure was :2,179 N/cm2 (3,160 psi) (3,040 psi) at T-3 set or 82.7 N/cm (120 psi) higher than the ? 2$96,N/cm2 The L slightly higher ,sphere~ sphere pressure on S-IB-3 during countdown. srnlrnr! facility manipressure recorded for S-IB-2 was in agreement with the 1 b-II--ssure regulator fold pressure and could have resulted from a'higher ground ore setting; the sphere pressure allowable redline value w;3.4 21275~/cm~ gauge (3,300 psig). Flight sphere pressure at T-,10 set T gas 2,179 N/cm2 (3,160 psi) and this declined steadily to 1,42C N/cm* (2.060 T ?cii) at OECO. The final . , sphere pressure was tgithin 68.9 N/cm* (100 psi) of the predicted value ,. At approximately 142 set, a change in slope of the supply prkssure cu:rve was noted, This was caused by the pneumatic requirement of closin .g the prevalves. The regulated pressure was well within limits throughout the c.ountdown and flight, The pressure was 530 N/cm2 (768 psi) at T-10 set and varied between 524 and 531 b/cm2 (760 and 770 psi) during flight.

The operation of the camera ejection system was satisfactory. Two movie camera capsules were incorporated on the S-IE stage t3 provide a permanent risnal record of the S-IS/S-IVB separation, S-IVB ullage rocket operation, and J-2 engine ignition. The movie cameras were ejected from the S-IB stage supply 25 set fnlloxing the SIB/S-I\% separation command. The predicted pressure drop at camera ejection was 86.2 to 172 N/cm2 (125 to 250 psi). The actual pressure drop at ejection was 96.5 N/cm2 (140 psi) at approximately 170 seconds. The supply source rsas a 0.028 m3 (1 ft3) nitrogen storage sp:w:rc. Initial sphere pressure at liftoff was approximately 2,155 N/cm2 camera ejection, (3,125 psi) and remained at this value until

77 9.0 S-IVB PROFULSION AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS

The performance of the S-IVB stage propulsion system was nominal The orily exception was the fuel recirculation shutoff throughout flight. valve not closing as expected, prior to engine start command. On the basis of flight simulation, th e overall. awl-age S-IVB thrust, mass loss rate, and specific impulse were 1.98%: 1 .98X, and 0.05% higher than predicted, respectively. The ,m&imum thrust fluctuation the due to sloshing was + 4,448 N (2 1,000 lbf 1, and was well within due co PU valve 3 sigma tolerance, Eo significant tk Lrust'fluetuation Engine cutoff occurred,, at 588.47 set, 13.73 oscillations occurred. set earlier than predicted. and,provided The Pu system operated in the closed loop configuration during the high thrust an average propellant mixture ratio of 5.5 to 1 PU, valve, period and 4.7 to 1 during the low thrust pe riod; cutback occurred at 475.72 see, 25.12 set later :thati predicted. Propellant satisfactory. LH2 of desired. Operation satisfactory. 9.2 962.1 by the FU system was loading and utilization contrbl The propellant load was within 0 .068x LOX and -0.191% of the propellant and auxi&+ary lrization plCess1 systems was

S-IVB PROPULSION PERFG. '.NCE ENGINE CHILLDO\\%

the thrust chamber jacket temperature IJpon initiation of chilldown, The temperature leveled off and was approximately decreased quickly. 118oK at liftoff when chilldown was terminated (cpper portion of Figure At S-IVB engine start command (MC}, i43.62 set, the temperature 9-l). me two was 134'K, which was within the requirement of 144 & 50'K. lower engine manifold temperatures {middle and lower portion of Figure S-IVB-201 had an uninsulated 9-l) followed a trend similar to S-IVB-201. thrust chamber jacket. Chi.lldol.;n and loading of the satisfactorily. GH2 mass in the The warmup rate after the lbm). The rvarmup rate ms 0.67'Klmin. engine GH2 start sphere were accomplished sphere at liftoff was 1.48 kg (3.26 sphere was pressurized, until liftoff, and mass consumption were satisfactory.

78

Thrust Chamber Jacket Temnerature (OK)

Time From S-WE Engine Thrust Chamber Above HaniCnld Skin Temperature - Fin Line 4 ("K)

Start

Command (see)

Data continued

to drop

to 55,6%

Time From S-lVB Engine

Thrust 160 Chmber Skin

Start

Command (see)

Above ?lanifold

Temperature - Fin Line 1 ("K;)

140

120 100 so hn
._

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

500

Time From S-IVB Engine

Start

Corrrmand (set)

79 was 161'K and the pressure was $75 E/cm2 At S-IVB ESC, the temperature these values were ~~11 within the requirements of 162 + (1,269 psi); 30K and 914 + 52 N/cm2 (1,325 + 75 psi), respectively, The mass diminished afFer start sphere biowdown to 0.34 kg (0.75 13~); the total mass consumed x~as 1.14 kg (2.51 lbm). The engine pneumatic control sphere conditioning wassatisfactory. At S-WE ESC, the sphere pressure was 2,056 N/cm:! (2,982 psi), the temperature was 157'K, and the mass was 0.E7 kg (1.91 lbm). The mass remaining after engine cutoff was 0.67 kg (1.48 lbm); 0.20 kg (0.43 lbm) was consumed. 9.2.2 START CHARACTERISTiCS

ESC occurred at 145.62, 1.18 set earlier th; sn predict ed. The S-IVB start thrust transient was slower than during actceptance testing (upper portion of Figure g-2). Yhrust buildup to the'91 3% 'level, 426 N,':m2 (618 psi), was achieved 3.502 set after S-IW ES2, as' compared to 3.181 set during acceptance testing. There was no thrl ust overshoot during the buildup transient. The total start impulse to 90% thrust was -781,139 N-s (175,607 lbf-s>, as compared to,the,l predicted value of 808,944 N-s (181,858 lbf-s) and an acceptance test value of 787,678 N-S (177,077 lbf-s). The 360 msdelay for the "inje' ction temperature OK" bypass signal occurred as planned. The main oxia iizer valv e @lOV) position during the start transient is shown in the lower POrtion of Figure 9-3. T Thr, Mm7 The MOY plateau and travel times are presented il n Table 9-,. &+.- .zvl opened slower than predicted, even though the AS-202 kIOV had the same modification as the AS-203 MOV. This was probably,the result of high LOX pump discharge pressure impeding the movement of the valve gate. TABLE 9-i Time Period First Plateau Second Stage Travel Stage Travel MOV OPENING TIMES Sequ2nce-?; (ms> 50 + 23 540 2320. 365 t 120 1390 2 40 test runs, 700 2430 without the cnginc ---stage Acceptance 120 (ms)

, Flight b=> 180

*Sequence times are determined burning propellant.

from "cold"

Figure 9-3 shous the ?iOV temperature environment from liftoff Tem,Jeratures are J-Z engine start and cutoff art through S-IVB cutoff. .tnd trends were similar to ~hOSC on AS-20~' J. also fisted. Temperatlire

Tempereture Location
M*V Temperature 250 , (OK), I At J-2 Eng.

(*K}
At J-2 mg.

Star,t Line Temp.

Temp. 235 22.5 213

Cutoff
241 180 215

MOV C~~bsing Control

**+739+nr lIq,usi*g

Engine Area AmE lient

Temp.

82

9.2.3

KAINSTAGE ENGINE ANALYSIS

Two separate analyses were employedin recqnst, rutting Sr'IVB~f-2 engine performance. The first method, engine,analy, s'is, :,u,tilized ,,telemctrred engine and stage data to computeelongitudi: nal thrust;, specific In the, s&ond me'thod, flight simulaimpulse, and stage mass flowrate. a five-degree-of-freedom trajectory simulatio! n:,ti$,s :uti,lizg'd Jo ,:,' tion, :etoy*,,',, -': ~:,',,',: '),,', ',,' ', fit engine analysis results to the traje The S-IVB engine performance was rec,qnstruct~d:frdm.S-IVB,enpine' :,' ',' start command (ESC) to S-IVB engine cutoff'~command,:'(ECC'j.:~~ The, ~results of the computer program were used, to ,F~~,,~duce,,~'f,inal "engine,:perfdrmanc:e Deviations from predicted o,f,,the;,,recons,truc,ted:~~pRrf~ormance , ~,:I,:~ :~ : ,, results. val,ues are presented in' Table 9-II ,and ,Fig'uro:,9-,4;:, :Rec'on$tructed,, performance values are b,as+ upon' analysis sf',te'iemetered,,engine:,:,,, ',' ::, parameters, ,, h-IVB KC occurred at 588.47 set, ,l3.,73'~see:,eariier:t,han predi&ted. ,' The expected' propellant depletion time was: 6Q5.90' sec'onds; ,' ,This:e$c,ted,: time was based ,on acceptance testing' dats:,,:snd ,e$gine"data :$?om,,&y ,~;:;,~ ::,~ ,r?ngine contractor., The total propellant :r&iduazls'~~bove :the main, propellant valves at S-IVB ECC, derived,: by ',:flow integral ana,lysi,s, ', :', were 1,921 kg (4,235 ,'lbm) LOX and .73O,:,,kg (1',,6lO','lbm) LH ';' prediCted :,,:"," ,~ values were 1,244 kg (2,742~lbm) LOXsnd489 kg, (,1;,079,:,,bm) LH2'; ,, :,' ,,y ,'I ,' t "' ,, A five-de&e-of-freedom trajectory simul,arion'prbg~~,-am~,was:employed ,, :' ta adjust the S-~VBpropulsion 'performance~:analysis,,results'ger.erated'by :',': the 'enginc analysis,, Using a djff2rential,,correctibn:,procedure, this, : simulation determined adjustments to theengine analysisthrust and,mass, flow histories to yield a ,simulated,trajectory which,closely matched the observed mass point trajectory. These:resultswere obtained by a hunting procedur e addustment which resulted in an increase of 0.1% ',, in thrust 'and 0.2% in mass flowratr- ! from tbe,engine analysis res,ults. A comparison of the predicted proplllsion performance and the flight sim;lation generated propulsion performance is:~i&luded in Table Y:II* The ,differences were'dus primarily to'the, longer than predicted LUI:n duration a& high mixture ratio. The mass flowrate determined :by flight simulation, dombined with Irk mas 5 a t any point in time ! on the trajec,tory, allows an accurate determination of the vehicle mass history. The flight simulation solution of the vehicle'mass resul ted in a mass of 143,239 kg (315,788 lbm) at S-IVB ESC and a mass of 37 ,435 kg (82,,531 lbm) at S-IVB ECC.

-,Acfal ----Predicted

,','

:,

Elowrate

(lb/s)

1sc Y

! 2

I
Iize

I
froa~Engine

I
Srarc,,Comna~d (set),

85 9.2.4 CUTOFF CHARACTERISTICS

Engine cutoff occurred at 538.47 set, 13.73,sec earlier ,than prcdieted. Figure 9-5 shows that the cutoff,transient':Jas smooth, and close to that exhibited during stage acceptance testing: 5% of the,, steady state thrust, 50,042 N (11,250 Ibf),,was reached 0.748 see after initiation of the guidance cutoff signal as mo#to,ged at the J-2 engine. After 1.68 set, there was no significant thrust."': The cutoff impulse and associated velocity,increa'ses, engine and guidance data, are compared, to,pr&dlct,ed,,and test results below. Predicted 210,570 47,338 5.7 Whis 9.3 9.3.1 S-IVB value i Acceptance Test: Stage ,',Engine 263,828, '59,311 7,2 1 thrust 211;424 47,,530;\ ,derived from to'acceptance "

,~"',: ,JPl&ht ",,' : ;'Eng, Data Guid;,,Da,ta ~, 2,28,'%41' ,232,019 ',,51,423, : ', 52,,160 :6.1 ,'6.2 conditipns

',

,':'

incorporates,rated

and standard,altitiude

,,

PROPELLANT UTILIZATION

PROPELUhT WSS ANALYSIS

Stage propellant utilization was accomplis :hed $n,t&e closed-loop mode. Propellants were loaded 1~ a mass ratio :o which wawprograrnmed to yield a nominal 306 set high engine mixtur,rat :ib (EMR) operation and then to cut back to reference mixtu .re ratio (RMR) for the remainder of S-IVB powered flight. Cutback occu rred approximately,25 see laterthan predicted, but was within tolerance of + 45 seconds. The high EMR was 5.5 to 1 and the RMR was 4.7 to 1 d;ring flight. These values were nominal. The S-IV3 propellant mass hist ory is presented in TBble g-III. The desired propellant load was, 87,668 kg (193,274 lbm) LOX and 16,838 kg (37,121 lbm) LH2. The statistically weighted avsrage propellant load, resulting from total stage mass weighted averaging (Figure 9-61, indicated a load within 0.068% of desired LOX and -0.191% of desired LH2 .

86
Thrust
600

Chamber

Pressure

(psi)

500

400

300

100

0 588.47

588.87 Range Time (set)

FIGURE

9-5

S-IYB

CHAMBER

PRESSURE CUTOFF ,TRANSIENT

TABLE 9-111

S-J.VB PROPELLANTMASS HISTOEl

Engine Flow Integral (2) I

Sta,tisticall.y Wtd. Average (3) I

PU Valve

Cutback

(1) (2) (3)

PU system Composite Composite

indicated mass cvrwcted,for of engine analysis ,pronrains. of PU'syktem, engines'

The mass values

at IS-IB

lifto~ff

are identical

Total LOX Nonlinearity

k)

- -

ActuaL Predic

----Acceptance

-40 L-l-J-L
0 4 LH2Mass FIGURE 9-1 8 12 -_ in Tank (UXK~ kg) LOX AX' Li:2 NONLINEAR13

91 Telemetered lW Valve Position (deg)

,Kangc, Tim.2 Reconstructed 40 IWValve Position

(set)

r', ', :,' : (deg) ':' :,:",, : ,,,

,20

-2Q 100 ',, '200 300 Kan&e Tine' 400 (set) :~sqll ,' 600,~

950

850

756 iO0 200 3cKl Hanj$~ Time FICUKE 9-8 400 (tiec) AND TIIRUST FLUCTUATIONS 500 600

s-~VB I'" VALVE POSITKQN

92 9.4 9.4,,1 S-IVE PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM SYSTEM system performance was satisfactcry throughthe engine pump inlet withinthe specified at the engine LH2 pump inlet was maintained throughout S-IVB powered fligl:t. The minimum at 442.62 sed Andy was at least 1,3 N/cm2 minimum. Pressurization control and step and within predicted limits.

FUEL PRESSURIZATION

The fuel pressurization supplying LH, to out flight, operating limits, The N&F above the allowab e minimum NPSP was 5.0 N/cm i (7.3 psi) (1,9 psi) above the allowable pressurization were normal

The LH pressurization command was received at approximately T-113 seconds. T$e LH2 tank pressurized signal was received 69 see l,ater, However, when the LH2 tank ullage pressure reached 25 N/cm2 (36.3 psi). the ullage pressure continued to increase until S{IVB E~SCat 145.62 set (upper portion of Figure 9-9). At S-IVB ESC, the LH2 tank ullage pressure waeappr,oximately 28 N/cm2 (40.6 psi), Between S-IVB ESC (145.62 set) and approximately 148.4 set, GH2 bleed frcm the engine flowed into the LH2,tank through the normal pressurization orifice, ,the control pressurization orifice, The controland step,pressurization and the step pressurization orifice. orifices are normally opened at S-IX3 ESC and closed 2,:8 set la,ter. Therefore, a momentary high flow of GH2 entered the LB2 tank at S-IVB ESC. However, the effect on the ullage pressure,was negligible. ,When the control and step pressurization orifices were closed, the ullage pressure began a normal decrease to a minimum of 19.4 N/cm2 (28,l psi) The actual profile was at 285 set (lower portion of Figure 9-9). close to that predicted, with the ullage pressure being maintained between 19.4 and 20.9 N/cm2 (28.1 and 30.3 psi) up to step pressurization. This minimum pressure was above the minimum allowable limit of 19.3 N/cm2 (28 psi). Step pressurization was initiated automatically at 445 set to provide adequate LH2 pump NPSP until S-IVB ECC,, At step pressurization command, both the over control and step pressurization control valves were opened The ullage to permit additional pressurant to flow into the LB2 tank. pressure increased from 19,4 N/cm2 (28.1 psi) to 28.3 N/cm2 (41 psi) at S-IVB ECC. Immediately after ECC the S-IVB ECC occurred at 588.47 seconds. at 20% of full LH2 tank level, decrearsd sharply ullage temperature, The upper portion of Figure 9-10 shows (lower portion of Figure 9-10). that, at 600 set, the ullage pressure was 28.4 N/cm2 (41,2 psi) and was starting to decrease slowly. At 610 set, the pressure was 27.4 N/cm2 (39.8 psi This was followed immediately by a steep pressure decay to 3- (28.1 psi) in 10 seconds. 19.4 N/cm Simultaneously, the ullage temperature dropped within a four-set period to approximately 23'K.

LH, Tank Ullage 30

Pressure

(N/cm')

si)

4
10 -200 -100

E
+epressurization I I 0
Time (set),

I - ,.^
IUIJ

I 1 I I

Ranj:e

LH2 Task Ullage

I'rcssurc

(N/cm2) I I,

rrcssurc

S-&B Start I I

Engine Command

I II

I I
200

[Pressurization Cammand iI E-IVBEngine Cutoff Command.N I k Spacecraf"b Separated I 400 GO0

ia

800

Range Time (see) FIGURE 9-9 LH2 TANK Pl:ESSUKI%ATION SYSTE?I PERFORWKI: (POWERED)

LK2T'ank Ullage 30

Pressure

(Z'/cm2)

Ireasure

(psi)

10

500

5x

600

65G

700

7,50

Range Time LH2Tank LIllaRe Tempcrarure 140 120 ("g)

--and

lczatioti'af

the

1au

80

60 40

& 70%;
& 70%;

20

300

550

ll
ll

650

700 750 Ran& Time (set)

800

830

900

9.50

FIGURE 9-10

LH~ TANK PRESSURIZATION SYSTEMFRwORMANCE (COAST)

This was due to-the dispersion of the LH2 residual through as a result of a negative acceleration being applied to the spacecraft engine plume impingement. After this coudFtion the LH, tank pressure rose to 25,2 N/cm2 (36.5 psi) at 941 common bulkhead ruptured as expected (see Par-a. 9.4.2).

the ullnge, S-IVB by stabilized? sac when the

LH2 tank venting dirl not occur during S-IVB powered flight. The GH2 pressurization flaxrates were 0.168 to 0.259 kg/s (0.37 to 0.57 lbm/s) until step pressurization.Afterstep pressurization was initiated, the GH? flo\Jrates ggere 0.54 and 0.48 kg/s (1.19,and 1.06 lbm/s) during high EMR and RMR, respectively. These values were nearly equal to predicted values and indicated that,, from S-IVB ESC to S-IVB EGG, 127 kg (281 lbm) of GH2 was added to the ullage. The collapse factor Calculations varied from 0.50 to 0.75 during steady state opers,tion. and temperatures :at S-IVB engine based on LH2 tank ullage pressures start ccmmand and engine cutoff indicated negligible LH2 boiloff during S-IVB powered flight, LH7 Supply -I Conditions

TSe LH2 pump inlet NPSP x?as calculated,from the pump inlet temperature These values indicated that the NPSP at S-IVB and total pressure. ESC was about 15.0 N/cm2 (21.8 psi), as shoxr in the upprr portion o,f It cycled with the pump inlet pressure, reaching a minimum Figure 9-11, of 5.0 N/cm2 (7.3 psi) at 442.62 set just before step pressurization. Tlnis was 1.3 N/cm* (1.9 psi) above the required NPSP,at that time, The NPSP agreed closely with predictions. The LH7 system chilldown circulation was adequate; however, the fuel recirc;lation valve failed to close as commanded at S-IVB ESC, went off but the "valve closed" indication The "valve open" indication did not come on, indicating that the valve poppet had moved on'y ? fraction of its normal travel; this was further confirmed by a continued flowrate and a recirculation pump outlet temperature of 20.5 to 21.6'K, Apparently solid air or nitrogen forned in the convolutions of the valve bellows and prevented them from compressing fully to allow the valve Although this railure occurred during the S-IVB-202 and to close. S-IVB-203 flights (but not on S-IVB-201), it had no adverse effect upon Investigation and testing are being constage operation or performance. ducted to identify positively and remedy the cause of failure:, The LH2 pump static inlet pressure (middle cycled with the LH2 tank ullage pressure (upper Values ranged from about 17.9 to 28.3 Njcm2 (26 pump inlet temperature (lower portion of Figure the predicted value throughout flight. portion of Figure 9-11) portion of Fi:Lre g-10). to 41 psi). 'Lne LH2 9-11) was 0,2oK above

96 -aLH2 hTSP (N/em2)

Predicted k tua1 Pressure (psi) 25

15 20 10
15 10 5

150 LH7 Puol;l Static I&t Pressure 35

100

200 (ri/cm2)

250

300 350 400 Range Time (set)

450

550

550 Pressure

600 (psi) SO

2s I

J\

-\

II

15 I 100

150

200

250

I 300

I 350

I 400

II 450

I 500

I 550

I , 600

25

97 At S-IVB ESC, the LH? pump static inlet pressur-e and temperatu rc rcspccrivcly. were 2?,2 N/cm2 (40.9 psi? and 21.05%, This was w-11 within the engine start requirements (upper- portion of Figur-c g-12). 9.4.2 LOX PRESSURIZATION SYSTEPI

The LOX pressurization system performance was sacisfactor-y throughout the flight, supplying LOX to the engine pump inlet within the specified Prepressurization and pressurization control were operating limits. normal and within predicted limits, except during the S-IVB start transient. LOX tank prepressurization was initiated at T-161.3 set and increased the LOX tank ullage pressure from 11.3 N/cm2 (16.4 psi) to 27.9 N/cm2 One makeup (40.5 psi) within 15 set (upper portion of Figure 9-13). the LOX tank ullage pressure before it cycle was required to maintain The control psessurization switch maintained the pressure stabilized. between 26.1 and 27.9 N/cm (37.8 and 40.5 psi) up to T-1lQ seconds. gradually increased to 30.0 N/cm2 After T-110 see, the ul! ;e pressure (43.5 psi) at T-34 set as the LOX vent valve and LOX ullagr pressure At this time, the LOX sense line were purged with ambient helium. pressure decreased to 29.6 vent relief valve opened and-the ullage During S-IB powered flight, the N/cm2 (42.9 psi) and stabilized. ullage pressure declined as the ullage cooled. During S-IVB powered flight (middle portion of Figure 9-13), the ulla e pressure cycled seven times and remained between 26.1 and 27.6 The ullage N/cm' (37.8 and 40.0 psi) except during the start transient. predictions were based pressure cycled one more time than predicted: during which the heat input to the LOX on S-IVB-202 acceptance testing, tank was greater. The ullage pressure was maintained within acceptable when the limits throughout the flight, except during the start transient This ullage pressure dropped to 23.9 N/cm2 (34.4 si) at 168 seconds. 5 (36.0 psi), value was lower than the predicted 24.8 N/cm based on S-IVB-202 acceptance testing; however, the pressure was sufficient to meet the minimum NPSP requirements and was comparable to that which occurred during the S-IVB-201 flight. The ullage pressure started to increase just before S-IVB ESC and During LH2 lead, continued to rise after engine start during LH2 lead. the LOX pressurization system was actuated before LOX began flowing to The ullage pressure rise before S-IVB ESC also occurred on the engine. A possible explanation for this rise is ullage compression s-IVB-201. as the S-IVB stage acceleration level dropped immediately after separation began.

(K) bar !l*fre

99 LOX Tank Ullage Pressure ~N/cnt2) Pressure

(r)sif

.50 ; Tank Ullage

-100 Pressure

-50
Range

0 Time (set)

50

100 Pressure

150 (psi) 42

(N/cd.)

28

40 38 36

24 150 200 250 Pressure 300 350 400 450 Kange Time (set) 500 550 600 Pressure 650

34

Tank Ullage

(h'/cm2)

(psi)

40 36 32 28

16 12 a

24 20 16 12 a

4 0 700 FIGURE 9-13 750 800 Range Time (set) a50 900 Y50 1000

T&Z-C TAX ULtAGE Pl2.!ZSStiRE

100

(lower portion of Figure After S-IVB ECC, the ullage pressure 9-13) remained momentarily at 26.6 N/cm 2 (38.6 psi) until the programmed The pressure then decreased LOX vent occurred at 583.08 seconds, rapidly to 20.3 hi/cm2 (29.4 psi) within 10 seconds. At 596.58 set, the LOX vent valve was closed, By 618.46 set, the pressure had increased to 21,8 N/d (31.6 psi) due to vaporizing of the residual LOX. The ullage pressure remained at this level until 678.67 see when the vent was commanded open, It then decreased, reaching a level of 2,8 N/cm2 (4 psi) when the bulkhead ruptured at 941 seconds. At this time, the average differential pressure between the three LH2 tank sensors and the three LOX tank sensors was 22.4 N/cm2 (32.5 psi). This differential pressure was between the design criterion of 21.2 N/cm2 (30.7 psi) negative differential pressure and the ultimate (rupture) negative differential pressure of 23.9 N/cm2 (34,7 psi). The LOX tank pressurization flowrate variation r%s 0.177 tc 0.204 kg/s (0.39 to 0.45 lbm/s) during over-control,snd from 0.118 to 0.150 kg/s (0.26 to 0.33 lbm/s) during under-control system operation, excluding the first 10 set trar,sient period. This variation is normal hecause the Sypass orifice inlet temperature changes as it follows the coid helium sphere temperature. The helium used du-ring S-IVB powered flight was 69 kg (153 liirn); 154 kg (339 lbm) was loaded. The calculated collapse factor reached a maximum of 1.18 at approximately 245.62 seconds, It then decreased continuously, reaching 1.14 at S-IVB ECC.
The J-2 engine heat exchanger outlet temperature increased to 472'K during the 65 zec start transient period. Throughout the remainder of the high engine mixture ratio portion of S-WE powered flight, the outlet temperature varied between 484 and 517oK on over-control and 478 and 488O~ on under-control operation, These temperatures were 15 to 30oK higher than those recorded during the S-WE-202 acceptance testing. This difference was causrd by the absence of atmospheric convective heat transfer loss during flight through the uninsulated part of the" pressurization line, and by differences between the actual and the predicted engine mixture ratio. During acceptance testing, the pressurization line also had similar uninsulated parts. The helium flow through the heat exchanger was relatively constant at 0.953 kg/s (0.21 ibm/s) during over-control and at 0.032 kg/s (0.07 lbm/s) during undercontrol operation.

LOX Supplv

Conditions -

The NPSP, calculated at the LOX pump inlet, was 17.6 N/cm2 (25.5 psi} at S-IVB ESC (upper portion of Figure 9-14). The NPSP decreased after S-IVB ESC and reached a minimum value of 14.5 N/cm2 (21.1 psi) at 165.6' seconds. This was 0.55 N/cm2 (0.8 psi} above the required NPSP at that tim?, The SPSP then increased and followed the pump inlet pressure closely throughout S-IVB pol%Tered flight, since there was small variation in LOX t rr?.p* ra t L!1-e, The RPSP l+as slightly less than predicted, but was greater than rzquircd.

101.

---

Predicted
QtUal

Fresscre I
17.5

(psi)
I

25

15.0

/ -4
II
150

12.5

10.0 100

I
200

I
250 300 350 400 450 500 550

1s
600

Range Tine (set) LOX Pump Static Inlet Pressure (N/em21 Pressure
(pgi)

I il

50 45 40 35 30

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

LOX Pump Inlet Temperature (%)

92.5

Range Tim-= <see)

92.0

91.5 91.0 90.5 90.0 100

C I

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Range Time (see) FIGURE 9-14 LOX PUHP GWDITIONS

102 The chilldown The LOX system chilidown circulation was satisfactory. vslvc was closed prior to S-IVB ESC. At S-IVB ESC, the LOX pump inlet static pressure (middle portion of Figure V-14) was 28-6 N/cm' (41-5 psi) and the temperature was 91.7'K (lover portion of Figure 9-14). This was well within the start requirements (laxer portion of Figure 9-14). The LOX pump static inlet pressure (middle portiw of Figure 9-14) followed the cyclic trends of the LOX tank ullage pressure. Values ranged from 24.1 N/cm2 (34.9 psi) at 165.62 see to 29.6 N/cm2 (42.0 psi) immediately after ESC, with quasi-steady cycling around 26.9 N/cm2 The LOX pump inlet temperature (lower portion of Figure S-14) (39 psi). ve the predicted value during flight was continuously about 0.4% abo because of a higher- than predicted saturation temperature. The higher saturation temperature was due to higher than expected vent back-pressure. 9.4.3 AUXILIARY PRESSURIZATIOR SYSTEM

The pneumatic control and purge system performed satisfactorily The helium supply to the ,sysrem was adequate for throughout flight. both pneumatic valve control and purging. The regulated pressure was maintained within acceptable limits and all components functioned normally. The middle portion of Figure 9-15 shows that, the pneumatic control helium sphere pressure was approximately,l,998 N/cm2 2,89&',psi) at liftoff. The sphere pressure decreased to 1,823 N/cm 1 (2,644. psi) by S-IVB ESC. During S-IVB powered flight, the pressure dropped continuously until it reached 1,793 N/cm2 (2,601 psi) at S-IVB ECC; The upper portion of Figure 9-15 shows that sphere temperature was 255'K at liftoff'and decreased to 248K at S-IVB LSC. By S-IVB ECC, the sphere temperature was ?jl%. The helium mass usagc rates are compared in Table 9-W. TABLE 9-IV i Portion
S-15

during

S-IVB-2:!1

and S-IVB-202

flights

HELIUM MASS USAGE RATES S-IVB-201 S-IVB-202 sees 1,298 132 14,400

--

of Flight -~~ Powered Flight Power-cd Flight

sees 269 118 ssc 1,880

SCFN 0.57 0.25 4.0

SCEII 2.75 0.28 30.48

S-IVB

589.08 sfc to 596.5S (during velltin~)

5'?b,j8 see to 628 see 566 1.2 1,632 3.46 j;lfic:- --,-,-,-,.vtnting) xotc: SCCS is Standard Cubic Centimeter per Second and SCE?: is Standard Cubic Feet per Plinute.

I (?3 Control 260 ilelium Sphere Temperacure ("K)

240

-400

-300

-2w

-100

100 Start

zo\f

300

400

500

Time From S-IVB Engine Control Helium Sphere Pressure (N/IX&)

Command (6.x) Pressure (psi) 3OUO

2800 - 442.55 src 2600

V" Time From S-IPB Engine Start Command (secj

Cont~

11 Helium Discharge I

Pressure

(N/cn2) I

Prcssurt: I

(psi)

400 375

525 350 325 300 500 475 450 .OO -300 -200 -100 0 100 Time From S-IVB Engine 200 306 400 Start Command (set) I 5OC

FIGURE 9-15

PNEUMATIC CONTROL ANTI PURGE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

104

S-IB-2 powrcd flight were higher The helium mass usage rates during were flight, because the S-IVB-202 prevalves than during S-18-1 powered during S-IB-2 powered flight. On maintained in the closed position During th<, prevalvrs wrc left in the normally open position. s-IvB-201, the helium mass usage was considerably the! S-IvB-202 LOX v~nr; period, the comparable S-IVB-201 period, because helium was larger th3n during to maintaining the prevalves used to keep the vent open in addition On S-IVR-201, the venting was not significant after S-WE ECC. 1loscd. The larger bcliclm mass usage af ?r venting on S-IVB-202, as opposed to S-IVB-201, was due to maintail:ing the prevalves closed. At liftoff, the pneumatic hi-lium sphere contained 0.503 kg (1.11 The mass in the sphere at S-IVB ESC was 0.47 kg of helium, (1.04 lbm) and 0.46 kg (1.02 lbm) of helium remained at S-IVB ECC.

lbm)

All enkinc! and pneumatic control valves responded properly throughout The pneumatic control helium regulator the counrdowr and flight. operated satisfactorily and maintained an output pressure of 345 to During the period of high,pneumatic system 369 Njcm2 (500 to 535 psi). the control pressure dropped to 274 N/cm2 USC at S-IVB engine cutoff, Such drops occurred during acceptance testing and S-IVB-201 (397 psi). flight, and were expected. Since the pressure recovers rapidly, the drops are acceptable.

10.1

SLWARY

.D -8 N 4; Tic

m y

r 0s nc :

IIT

107

Module IIIn

rfodule I Propellants 20 Remainhg (kg)

IP

1 P~ropellants Remaining (It )m)

36

28

iO.Z.2

APS

NITOK

PElWOF3WKE

~iotor performance alas satisfactory throughoilt the flig,ht. Th<. total impvlsc I-equirc3.3 was greater than predicted due to the SPS impingeli,C'ili; . Th !ongest pulse required was 21.6 set on the module 2 pitch Chamber pressure on-times varied from approximately motor at 612 stcond>. 0.047 co 21.6 see and had correspondin g signal on-times. sf approximately 0.065 to 31.6 seconds.
APS

nvcra~~c' specific impulses for module 1 and,modu'le 2 were 260 and 269 see, wspcctively. T:W integrated total impulses for modules 1 and 2 as a function of mission time are presented in Figure 10-Z. The modurcjs 1 and 2 total impulse for various events throughout the flight is prescntc-d in Table IE-Li (APS Event Summary in Section 12),
Thv

The a"i'mgc~ engine mixture ratio (EXR) of module 1 was 1.62, which is the nominal value for minimum pulse widths., The average FXR of module 2 w:B' 1.64.

104

30

25

20

15

110

11.0 HYDRM%IC SYSTEEf

$-TB-'2 hydraulic system perfo-rmance was satisfactory. The pressure and oil levels on each engine, during powered flight, remained within reservoir oil temperature increased their acceptable limits. However, approximately 1.15OK on three of the S-IB-2 hydraulic systems at 60 to 67 see of flight. The S-I~~-202 hydraulic and operated satisfactorily system performed throughout flight. within the predicted limits

The system pressure levels were satisfactory and were similar to those of the S-IB-1 flight. At 0 set, the system pressures ranged from 2,2&O CO 2,275 N/cm2 gauge (3,250 to 3,300 psig). The pressure decreased about 37.9 K/cm2 (55 psi) on each engine due to the main pump temperature increase during flight [Figure 11-1, upper portion). Reservoir oil levels were also similar to those of,the S-I&l flight. There was an approximate 3X rise in each level from 0 to 142 set (Figure 11-1, center portion), which indicates a temperature rise of nearly 1loK in each hydraulic system's average oil temperature. This rise in average oil temperature is not reflected in the measured reservoir ,temperature. The reservoir oil temperatures were satisfactory during flight. Liftof. temperatures for the four S-IB-2 hydraulic systems averaged 349'K as compared to an average of 314'K for the four S-I&l hydraulic systems. The average temperature decrease during flight was llK for the S-IE-2 liydrauiic systems as compared to an average of 7.SK for the S-IB-1 hydraulic systems. A resemoir temperature increase of 9.6 to 1.7OK between 60 and 67 set of flight occurred on three of the four S-IB-:: hydraulic systems (Figtrrc 11-1, lorer portion) _ An increase of 2.8 to 5.6o~ between 60 and 75 set had occurred on all four S-I&l hydraulic systems. The res~crvoir temperature increase occurred near Mach 1 on bcth the S-1%1 and s-m-2 ,fPi~gllts. S-B-9 reached *Each 1 at 63.5 set and S-IB-2 at 63_ 69 sPConds _ The rtser~oir temperature increase had no detrimental cffccts on the flightt and nmains txeq3lained.

111
Pressure (N/c2 gauge)

Pressure

(psig)

2400

Ij 2200 3200

3000 2000 0 20 40 60 80 Ran&e Time (SK) LOO 120 140

t#

20

20

40

60 80 Range Time (set}

100

120

'$40

350

345

340

33s

330

60

100

140

112

Hydraulic system g~ressurcs, fluid levels, and temperatures at and S-IVB cutoff are presented in Table 11-I liftoff, S-IVB start, represent the expected momentary overshoot Duel .x?lues at s-IVB start and subsequent stabilized values associated kth the engine driven pump The reservoir lcvcl dual value at S-WE cutoff shows the stable start. System bleeddown was completed Level before and after system bleeddown. r~hen the auxiliary pump was commanded off. 5.21 SfC after cutoif, Continuous fluid temperatures and levels S-IVB cutoff are presented in Figure 11-2. from before liftoff to

113

Amdiary Engine

Pump Press. Driven p Outlet Press.

Engine Reservoir

Drive Tc-mp.

Pitch

Actuator Level

Temp.

Reservoir

EI

115

the performance of the guidance and control system was Ill general, The accuracy of the terminal conditions as expected and satisfactory. was impaired by an accumulation of pulses &om the Z accelerometer near lifroff, which remained as a -1.4 m/s bias throughout flight. After the x fine gimbal angle reasonableness test Limits spacecraft separation, and the X backup coarse gimbal was selected as programmed, were exceeded, :o rhc S-IV%/IU by rhe impingement due to hiph angular rates imparted of the exhaust plume of the spacecraft service module engine. The maximum values observed The control system functioned properly. for the control paramerers, near the maximum dynamic pressure region, were artitude errors of 1.7 deg in pitch, and -0.6 deg in yaw and roll; body and angle-of-attack of -0 .9 deg in pitch and 0.9 deg in j;aw. Inibial rates a'c S-IBIS-IV% separation were negligible, resulting in small sepaThe Auxiliary Propulslan System (AX) corrected for ration rransients. a constant roll torque throughout S-IV% poxsered flight c;hich created an The APS performed satisfacatritude error of approx-Gaately -0.5 deg. roriiy in correcting the pitch, yaw,and roll attitude errors following spacecraft separation .%nd achieved the CQaSt maueuvcrs as required.

12.2.1

CHANGES FOR SATURN I% AS-202

The Guidance and CQntrd {G&C) system for the AS-202 vehicle was the same as that flawn on AS-201, except that some minor configuration chai?ge5 were effected in the hardware, The principal differences xz?re: (lj the passenger Digital Command System (DCS) was deleted from tbc Instrument Unir (I&T); (2) the Control Signal Processore (CSP) was changed to a modification V configuration which added power line filters, a dual rate SWitCh, and filter circuits to the CSP/~DS rare switch function to attenuate frequencies above 16 HZ; (3) the Switch Selectors were changed to a modification 2 configuration to improve performance; and (41 one Control Acceleromebter Asset bty was relocated (mounted on a cold plate:) in rfie IU.

Electronics llrr LJ

1 I. 7

The stabilized platfor!il (ST-124PI3) is a th~rec giiml;,?l coirrii::lri!tiorl mounted en tl11, stabiic <,1~77i~,,inf with gas bearing gyros and accclf~-omcfcrs franc for attifudc control to provide a space-fixed coordinate referercc Vehicle accelerations and rotations and for navigation measurerlents. Gi.inbal angies arc iii~osiiri;d relative to this stable element. are sensed vclnci.t~by resolvers which have fine and coarse outpu~ts, and inertial is obtained from accelerometer head rotation in the form of encoder uui:puts which have redundant channels. The Launch Vehicle Data Adapter (LVDA) is an input-output device These two componelnts for the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC). are digital devices which operate in conjunction to carry out the fli@t This program performs the following functions: (1) processes program, (2) perform.3 navigation calculations, the inputs from the ST-124M3, (3) provides first stage tilt program, (4) calculates I@1 steering commands, (5) resolves gimbal angles and steering commands into the and vehicle system for attitude error commands, and (6) issues cutoff sequencing signals. 9 gyros (triple redundant The Control/EDS rate gyro package contains where they are voted and sent in 3 axes). Their outputs go to the CSP, These outputs are to the control computer for damping angular motion. also processed in the CSP fo: use as an abort parameter. The switch selectors are used to relay discrete The cutoff LVDC to other locati>:ns in the vehicle. events are issued through the switch selectors. 12.2.3 ~AVIGATIOW SCHENE DESCRIFTION was provided tine periods: by programs stored commands from the signal and time based

Guidance during S-IB powered flight in the LVDC and may be broken into three 1. 2. 3. GRR to 8 sac after iiftoff

(Time Base 1 f 8 set)

TBl i 8 to TB1 f 135 set TBl i 135 set to IGX initiation

In period 1, pitch and yaw steering commands were zero. The roll steering command was set to t5 deg to inhibit the removal of the initial +5 deg roll attitude. (rate pitch In period 2, the yaw command remained zero, roll Ti?S set 110 zero limiting prevented the coinxand from exceeding 1 deg/s), and the comnand was compnted from one of three third di:ree tine polyno:ni;.

118

In values

period 3, from period

the steering 2.

commands were

arrested

at

their

final

The S-IVB stage was guided by a modification of the multi-stage three-dimensional form of the Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM). IGM is an optimal schemr based on the optimum steering function derived from the This approximately thrust vector steering Calculus of Variations. function was implcmcnted in both the pitch and yaw planes of motion. Optimized vehicle performance dictates the use of two thrust levels The desired thrust levei change is achieved by a during S-IVB burn. the IGM scheme is very sensitive change in engine mixture ratio (EMRC). to acceleration changes. In particular, rau, a time term in the IGN varies as the reciprocal of thrust/nass (F/M). Due to this equation, an artificial tau mode is employed which reflects an ideal sensitivity, step change in thrust for the first 30 set after the thrust level change. The EMRC is detected by a decrease in measured platform acceleration over two computation cycles twice in succession, The sensirivity of the nal conditions are approached, ur:ilizing only the velocity During tilde steering mode. cutoff, the altitude constraint yaw terms are frozen at their all IGr! commands are cutoff, In genera 1,) sequence of scheme to F/M changes increases as the ter;ni.requiring the use of a terminal schem? constraint terms. This mode is the chi this mode, beginning,40 set before S-IVB terms in pitch are set to zero and the last values. Three seconds prior to S-IVB frozen, coast guidance frozen consisted from S-IVB of of two phases: -3 set to

1. All guidance TBil i- 100 sec,onds.

commands were

cutoff

2. At. ms f 100 set, the lbngitudinal axis manded to be aiigncd \;ith the local horizontal, Event sequencing roll of f75 dcg was commanded. l0el-e the sau1e as boost phase. 12.3 12.3.1 LALNCH VEHICLE S-IB FLIGHT CONTROL

the S-IVB/ID was comAt the same time, a and attitude control

STAGE CCXW.OL A%ALYSIS

3nd

The S-IB stage control system performed nominally in th.e pitch, yaw, roll pianes ~ The only off-nominal condition that was readily noticeabl,e was an apparent equivalent thrust vector misalignment of approximately 0.2 deg for all 8 engines which was needed to correlate flight simulations Table 12-I presents maximum control parameter values in the y;?~r plaw. \;i:h correspondin? flight times for S-IS powered flight. With the exception .:,i ;;tt itt;cie irrors, response parameters for AS-202 were relatively

TABLE 12-I (Nbar

the maximum

MAXTMUMCONTROLPARAMFPERS region
Pitch

dynamic preslsure

and during
Plane

Ro ,l Maneuver) Yaw Plane

(see)

Parameters Attitude
Error

Units
Magnitude Range Time

Magnitude -0.59
0.93 -0.21

Range Time (set) 96.8

92.1 80.9

1.71

80.8 76.1 61.9 76.1 85.0 76.1 Roll i

ane

Angfe-o~f*Attack (free stream) Angular Rate

deg degls m/s2 de8

Dyrranic deg-N/cm2

-0.89 -1.16 -0.38 -0.45

-1

Normal Acceleration
Actuator

0.22 -0.74 2.00

90.7 72.6
79.1

Position

Angle-of-A,ttack Pressure Product

During

Roll Maneuver
Range Time (set)

After

Roll

Maneuver

Magnitude
Attitude

Magnitude

Range Time (see)

Error Rate Roll

deg deg/s deg

1.27 -1.27
O.,L3

12;7 13.2
11.8

-0.57 -0.93 -0.20

94,.0 860.8 90.0

Angular

Engine Deflection

120

i IX, 11 . Thc~ iiiilx imw:~ VLC t 01. sun, \>a 1 LIE s were : 0.7 deg at 76.8 set for 0.9 dcg at 76.1 set foi- total angle-of-attack, tot;rl actuaior dcflc,ction, and 3.0 d;,g-N/cm2 at 76.1 see for dynamic pressure angle-of-attack pr-oclII i t * Thcasc maximum values ware significantly below design criteria, Figure 12-2 shows the vehicle attitudes in the roll and pitch planes compared to the programmed attitudes:. The pitch tilt program startC,d at 10.7 see and was arrested at 138.0 set at an altitude of 60.1 d<ygrLvs. The roll program was initiated at 10.3 set and was completed, after the vchiclc had rolled through 5 deg at 16.3 seconds. A small transient is noted in the roll rcsponsz of 0.195 Hz, which corresponds to the roll control. frequency, A comparison of Q-ball angle-of-attack and angle-of-attack calculated from winds for the pitch and yaw planes respectively is given in Figures 12-3 and 12-h. In the region from 39 to 58 set, Jimsphere/FPS-16 (t=O balloon 1-eleasc) wind data \.:as lost, Q-ball data is given only to 93 see since it failed at that time; data prior to failure appeared good. Ui.nds wre rather low for the month of September, reaching a maximum of 10.8 m/s in pitch and 16.3 m/s in yaw during the high q region, Artitude errors in pitch, yaw, and roll are given in Figure 12-5. The pitch/yaw control system gain change at 120 set is noted in both the tel.cmetcrcd data and the flight simulation. Gain changes were also made nt 90 seconds. l3ccausc the simulation shorvs good agreement between 90 and 1.20 see, with differences in the outer regions, further investigations are being made into the effects of off-nominal gains on the vehicle response. The positive roll at inboard engine cutoff (t=139.6 set} is :,:;a in pros (in t a 5 it was on AS-201 and AS-203, FLgurc 12-G she. US attitude 1,20 s;cc beinS again reflected rates comparisons, in the data, the gain change at

13 Fiyri 12-7, telemetered average gimbal angles in pitch, yaw, and roil a~-C: presented with results of the flight simulation. As previou::l,y m~nti.on~~d, it was necessary to incorporate an equivalent 0.2 dads i*ngin<: 01 thrust vector misalignment for 8 engines to correlate the fl iT:ht I-r+:ii!ts in the yaw plane, The effect of a control system gain <:hangc at 120 see is evident in the gimbal angle response and is even ii;<~i-~',cvlci~.~rif in the at titude errors in Figure 12-5. Small differences in the pitch gimbal angle fr-om 100 SEC to S-IB cutoff are being investi,k::~ted on the assumption of either off-nominal control system gains or 0 c 1%I- p 0 5 5 ij 1c c ii u s ii s . The high frequency P content apparent in the f 1'1 <,J:j<> ,-,~ eii-i-al 1 i,jl (1 angles is attributed to sloshing feedback. Lack of t-i: .5 1~ t i on 0 f: th,, meteorological 0 u tape wind, sampled every 250 m altitude in ,'i-Lrll<-ii t . azcount$ for some smoothing of the flight simulation; however, no : imi 12 i ioil of t!ic Saturn series to date has been able to account for

121 Roll Program and Roll Attitude (deg) (Space-Fixed) (+ CW Viewed from Rear) 6

3 2

xy Roll

Program

ST-124M3 Platform P-3 Roll Attitude

-1

Range Time (see) Arrest Pitch Program

Pitch Program and Pitch Attitude (deg) (Space-Fixed) (+ Nose Down from Vertical) 60

50

-c
Xz Pitch Program-

,A / r Al IECOi iOEC0

q----

40

30

I
Bz Pitch Attitude

2,

10

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Range Time (see) 120

160

FIGURE 12-2

S-IB STAGE COKMANDANGLES

122

Pitch Angle-of-Attack (C Nose Above Relative 1-O 0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0
0 10
I I

(deg) (Free Stream) Velocity Vector) /Q-Ball Angle-of-Attack I II

1 t 1

20

30

40

Range

50

Time

60 (set)

70

80

90

,A10

rz~cn crane wind Velocity (A Downrange)

(m/s)

-30.0

1 0

io

20

30

40

JO 60 Range Time (WC)

70

80

90

"GO

110

FIGURE 12-3

PITGH PL4NE WWD VELOCITY AND FREE STREAM ANGLE-OF-ATTACK

123

Yaw Angle-of-Attack (deg) (Free Stream) (+ Nose Right of Relative Velocity Vector) 1.0 0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Range Time (set) 70 80 90 100 110

Yaw Plane Wind Velocity (m/s) (+ Toward Right of Flight Plene) io.0

Angle-of-Attack ~. Wind

I.

-10.0

-20.0

10

40.

50 60 Range Time (set)

70

80

90

100

110

FIGURE 12-4

YAW PLANE WIND VELOCITY AMI FREE STREAMANGLE-OF-ATTACK

124
-+---

Flight -.----Telemetry

Simulation.

Pitch Attitude (+ Nose up)

Error

(deg)

Arrest

Pitch

Program

0 Range Time (set)

Yaw Attitude Error (-I. Nose Right) 0.5 -

(deg)

7
I I I I

20

---Accelerometer I I 40 60

Active + I I 100 Range Time (set) I

Control I

120

se-

160

Roll Attitude Error (deg) . (+ CWViewed from Rear)

20

40

60

80 100 Range Time (set)

120

140

Jc60

FIGURE 12-5

ATTITLIDE ERRORS-I?3 POWEREDFLIGHT

125 + Pitch Angular Rate (de&s) (IU Cor.trol Rate Gyro) 6.5 Telemetry Flight Simulation IECO

-0.5

I -1.0
-1.5

20

40

60

Range Time (set)

80

100

120

140

160

Yaw Angular (IU Cdntrol

0.3
0.2

Rate (deg/s) Rate Gyro)

0.1 0 -0.1
-0.2 -0.3

20

40

60

Range Time (set)

80

100

120

140

160

Roll Angular Rate (den/s) Cc&o1 Rate G&j

60

Range Time (set)

80

100

120

140

160

FIGURE 12-e

AKGDLAR RATE GYROS S-IB PO\&%?ED FLIGHT

126 .-.-......... Reconstructed + Flight Simulation

Average Pitch Actuator (+ steer Nose Down)

Position

(deg)

I
Begin Pitch

I
I I A

Program

I
Arrest I,

Pitch I

1 IECO

ProEram

-0,2 -0.4 -0.6 ' 0 20 40 60

'30 100 Range Time (SEX)

120

140

160

Average Yaw Actuator (+ Steer Nose Left)

0.5

Position

(deg)

-0.5 -1.00'

20

40

60 I

80

100 !,

_ 120

._

Range Time (set)

Average Roll Actuator Position (+ CCWViewed from Rear) II I I I I .

(deg) _. . I I I

Range Time (set) FIGI,, 12-7

s-IB AW~AGE ACTUATOR POSITIONS

the 0.2 to 0.3 deg double amplitude in the engine gimbal angles attr-ibuted The lower plot in Figure 12-7 shows roll gimbal to sloshing feedback. angles with reconstructions from the telemetered attitude and attitude rates superimposed as points. Figure measurements 12-8 presents the sloshin g analysis and an analysis of sloshing effects of the S-IVB PU probe on the control system.

The top graph on the left side of the figure shows the sloshing peak-to-peak amplitude from the S-IVB LH2 PU probe signal with and withAlso shown are the slosh ampliout the hydrodynamic attenuation factor. tudes from the flight simulation. The low simulation values, to about 55 set, are due to lack of activity in the approximation of the Jimsphere/ FPS-16 winds and to the fact that the simulation is planar and does not have the coupling generated by the simultaneous roll and pitch tilt proThe ampiitudes~ were lower on this flight than grams to excite sloshing, on the AS-203 flight. No analysis of the S-IVB LOX amplitudes was made because the LOX PU probe and the liquid surface intersection were practiOn.the basis of cally on the centerline of the tank for this flight. sloshing occurring about the centerline of the tank, no rational readings from the PU probe could be obtained during S-IB power flight. The bottom graph shows the predominant sloshing frequencies from the S-IVVB LOX and S-IVB LH2 PU probe measurements compared to their predicted coupled natural frequencies. The top graph on the right side of Figure 12-8 shows the predominant sloshing frequencies observed from actuator positions in the pitch and yaw planes. The observed frequencies are compared to the predicted first mode coupled frequencies of the most influential tanks. S-IVB LOX and S-IVB LH2 are the major contributors to sloshing, with the S-IB center LOX tank contributing during certain periods r' flight. By using a series of bandpass filters on the actuator position signals, the individual contributions to engine deflection from the S-IVB LOX and the S-IVB LH2 sloshing were obtained in pitch and yaw planes. These contributions are presented in the center and bottom graphs on the right side of Figure 12-8. Table 12-11 presents control parameter values at S-IB/S-IVb separation. Yaw parameters reflect the result of the engine misalignment. All other values are considered nominal and indicate adequate performance of the attitude control systems.

TABLE 12-11 S-IB

Parameter

STAGE SEFAMTION
I f Un2ts

FARMETERS Fitch -0.06 j-Yaw -0.3s o,t Roll 1

Attitude Attitude Normal Actuator 12.3.2 S-IVB

Error Rate Acceleration Position

deg deg./s /

-0.04

STAGE COWROL ANALYSIS pitch and J-2 engiile control system,perfl xmance inthe plane during the APS control performance in the'roll ents were within the capawere satisfactory. All transii systems. corn-

The S-ID yaw planes and powered flight 'Xlities of the

The vehicle pitch and yaw Lttitudes camp;ared to the steering mands, during S-IVB powered flight, are,shoiJn in F:igure 12-9.

positions during Attitude errors, attitude rates, and actuator pwered flight are shown in Figures 12-10, 12-11, ;and 12-12, respectively. The agreement between the actuator positions compui ted from the control tes that the steady equations and the actual actuator positions,indicastate gains were close to their design values. S-IVB roll disturbances at S-IB/S-ITTB separation were in the same direction as on AS-201and AS-203, but of greater magnitude. Approximately three times as many APS motor firings were required on AS-202 as on AS-201 to provide roll stabilization. Approximately twice as many APS motor firings were required on AS-202 as on AS-201 to provide roll stabilization following initiation of the iterative guidance mode. small on AS-203.) (Each of these disturbances was relativeiy The steady-state roll torque experienced durin, 0 the S-IVB powred flight was approximately 23.0 R-m (17 lbf-ft) CCW looking forward. This torTz was in the same direction as on AS-203 and in tha opposite direction of that on AS-201. The magnitude was comparable to the 21,6 %-m (16 lltif-ft) on AS-201 and larger than the 8.1 N-m (6 lbf-ft) on M-203. Since the APS roll control motors were nor coupled to fire as a pair during S-DE powered flight, the roll firings were subject to amplifie:to'erances which resulted in motor IIIIT firing more often than motor ilv

130
Guidance Initiation

172.4

set I'ilde set S-I yB Ezgine CO 588 L47 se= x = 0.80 deg x 7 0.43 deg

i Yaw Comnand,and Yaw Attitude (Space-Fix<) (+ Nose Right) i 2 j

(deg)

100

I 200

I 300 Pznge

Time

I 400 ,' (WC)

Pitch @mmand (Space-Fixed) Guidance

and Pitch Attitude (+ &x%? Down from I Initiation I

(deg) Yercical) I

sta IE-c Chi Tilde mpod k545.1 set ~, :, [, ,,:,

500,, ,60 ,, s-1 ,,,

0

IVE Engine 58 8.47 see , ,' cz =,79.94 # z= 80.10 3

CO deg deg

Sz Pitch i 300

Attitude 400 >uo 600

134 The APS activities during to correct for the steady-state roll torque. S-IVB powered flight are summarized in Table 12-III. The impulse values presented are within the three sigma predicted value of 5,805 N-s (1,305 lfb-s) per module although they are ,higher ,than the predicted nominal of 1,401 N-s (315 lbf-s). The initial body rates at S-IB/S-IV8 s@paratJon were negligible,, Pitch,': yat*, and roll thus resulting in small separation transients. attitude errors at separation xgere -0.06, -0.38, and,O.%%deg, respectively. The separation transients were stabiliz@+thin 25;seconds. During LET jettison and at guidance initiation, the pitch,, yaw, and, roll The S-IVB transients resulting from attitude errors were negligible. guidance initiation amounted to maximum attitude'errors,of ,,-1.6 deg, ,' -1.2 deg, and -0.4 deg in pitch, yaw,and roll;"~e'spectively., Tkkmakim,um pitch, yaw, and roll rates during this' t,ratisient,were 1.4,J,eg/s,O.:9 degJs, and 0.4 degls, respectively. APS motoks'III; IIy,i ,IIIII;,and IIIIv fired 9, 10, 11, and 8 times, respect,ivelp;' to,p,rovide roll, control during the guidance initiation trans,iont. ,,,Duritig the remainder of " S-IV3 powered flight, only BPS motor IIv and ,IIIII,,firtld,:i~termittently to maintain a relatively constant stsady'stste roll:attittide 'errpr, of, ,, -0-s deg, Figure 12-13 presents LH2 and LOX sloshing frequencies 'as determined from the PU probes and shows that LH2 slokhed~at its 'natural first mode frequency, Oscillations at Lli2 s,loshing frequenc~ieswere observed in pitch rate gyro data and in pitch actuator differential pressure data but none in the yap plane. Thus, ,Lli2 sloshing in the pitch,plane was of sufficient magnitude to affect the control system, resulting in an actuator limit cycle of f O,f2 deg. As shot~n in Figure 12-13, the LOX PU probe data showed frequeneies which fell between the natural first and second mode frequencies. These were also &served on 85-203 and AS-201. Throughout S-IV8 powered flight. the LC3X mode followed the frequencies which would result if ~the LOX second mode were driven at the 122 first node slosh frequencies, These frequencies occur because the LOX second mode is light?y damped and is bring driven a~ frequencies close to, butnotcoincid-ntal &th, its natural frcquencyy. This praduces a beat in the LOX response; that 15, rhc LOX oscil-lates ar a frequency equal t5 the arithmetic average of Fbc: driving (IXp first mu&?) frequency and the LOX second mode narslr~al frequency,. The vector magnitude of the LOX slosh varies at a ~TC~UC~XIC:,: iqWB to the diffe~t?llce of the driving frequency and the LOX stxond mode natural frequency. The average of the frequencies is shown in Fi,prr 12-14. Data lndirated that the vector amplitude variation of the slush magnilrud? also occurs at a frequency equal to the difference sf the r,i<o frquenf i~as -

19 j2,

633.9 1,,822.,9

14215 409.8

.-

138
Figure 12-14 presents the LH2 slosh amplitude history which agrees with the AS-201 data and shows a maximum LH2 slosh amplitude of 68.5 cm (17 in) or 137 cm (54 in) peak-to-peak at the tank wali.

The APS performed sntisfactorily in pitch, yaw, and roll throughoilt the coast phase of flight. Table 12-III presents a summary of the APS activity from the S-IW engine cutoff until common bulkhead rupture. At 589,l set, the LOX tank blov:down vent was opened, causing attitude excursions on the second flight stage. The APS :~as activated at 593.7 set and immediately began correcting the attitude orientation. The LOX vent was closed at 596.7 set and the APS continued to control the second flight stage until spacecraft separation at 598.70 seconds. The APS impulse required during this period was 5,124 N-s (1,152 lbf-s). At spacecraft separation, small pitch plane transients were imparted to the S-IVB. The APS continued to stabilize the S-IVB attitude following spacecraft separation until service propulsion system (SPS) ignition at 610.4 seconds. The APS impulse required during this 12 set interval was 2,971 N-s (668 lbf-5). The SF'S ignition and a large disturbance on the tu these large excursions the SPS ignition. An APS (7,dj-i lbf-s) is attributed subsequent exhaust gas impingement resulted S-IW stage. The APS responded satisfactorily and maintained control of the S-I%3 following impulse usage of approximately 34,927 N-s to the unexpected SPS impingement effects. in

The M'S reduced the pitch and yaw attitude errors at a corrective rate of approximately 0.4 drgfs, and the roll attitude error was reduced at a corrective rate of 0.75 dog/s. Near-zero atritude error orientation was regained in pitch at 726 set, in yaw at 690 set, and :n roll at 680 necunds f

139

Pitch Attitude (t Nose Up)

Error

~(de~)

-60 417 Range Time (see> SW Attitude Error Cdeg)

ZOO
Roll

650
Attitude Error

700 P,ange Time Isec) (degl

-20 -40 -40 -80 600 a50 700

I %
750

I I I I I I lil
350 900 950

12.3.A 12.3.G.l

CONTROL CUEPOSENT AMLYSIS COXTROL ACCFLEKOXETERS

The tvo body-fixed control accelerometers located in the Instrument Unit (to provide load relief in the pitch and yarJ,,planes fro3 30 to 110 The pitch control accelerometer output reflected SEC) functioned properly. the observed vind conditions correctly throughout,flight, reaching a This inaxi,&& is practically maximum of -0,3S ml's2 at 76-l seconds, identica 4 j but opposite in sign, to that recorded on M-203, which was 0.36 m/s- at 73.8 seconds. The yar+ control accelerometer reached a maximuin the 11.02,m/,s, 'negative yar+ plane of -0.27 n/s2 at 40.3 SEC, reflecting vind velocity observed at this time. Data from the control accelerometers are gisen in Figure 12-16. The telemeter71 data have,been filtered by a digital filter while the flight simulation date are the,wutput of, the con-. trol system filter in the analysis, The absence,'wf nonaf acCeleration at S-13 cutoff is confirmation that the yar+'attitud,e error and gimbal angle bias ws caused by engine misal'igprr;enr rather:'than a CG offset.

Pitch and yaw angle-of-attack components riere measured b-j a Model F-16 Q-ball transdxer mounted on the tip of the Launch Escape'To~er (LET). Figure 12-17 short results of a flexible,body planar sitiulation in the pitch and yaw planes compared to Q-ball,angle-of-attack. Discrepancies in the 40 to 55 set range are attributed to loss of Jimsphere/FPS-16 wind data in that region. Q-ball data i+ere nnz good after:93 seconds: see section 16.5 for the detailed analysis of this condition. Maximum anglesnf-attack of -0.9 df2~ in pitch and yart \<ere measured near the max Q region, Wwn the ~-ball data 'i;ere corrected for attitude rate and flexible body cffc~c~~s;, rbc pitch value changed to -I,0 deg.

..

Fitch Control Acceleration (c Toward Position III)

0.2

(m;s2) I----T I I Accelerometer I Control Active

*Flight -Telemetry Arrest

Sim:i?atioti: IECG Pitch I

-0.2

Range

Tine

(xc)

yaw Control Acceleration (+ Toward Position IV)

(I#)

-.-

-0.3

7.0

40-

60

80

100

120

140

160

FIGLRE 12-16

CONTlUJL ACCELERATIONS S-IB

POWERED FLIGHT

le-of-Attack

, PI

for M-203. The opposite polarities reflect a count(~rclock!:izi~ rol! folAS-202 and a clockwise roll for X-203, as viewed from the rri::lr- of thi vehicie. The maximum roll angular rate after the roll mnneuvtr- [.:a~ -0,V deg;s at 60-S set, which is more than twice the rate obscrvcd on .i s - ?0 3 for the same time period near Mach 1. 12.3,4.4 ACTUATOR PERFOFWXE

All eight servo actuators performed smoothly during S-IB stage fli$c. parameters for AS-202 we're lower- than those reIn genera I, all actuator The maximum pitch gin&ml angle (-0,5& deg) occurred on corded on AS-203. engine 3 at 85.0 seconds. Engine 2 yax\7 actuator, experienced the larees: yaw gimbal angle, which was 0.80 deg at 72-6 secqnds. The gimbal rates observed on AS-202 :<ere lower than those recorded on eitheAS-203 or 85-201, and were about the same magnitude in both the pitch ,and yaw planes, TIP? greatest gimbai rate observed for AS-202 ,flight was -2.25 deg/s on This rate is approximately 12.3;: engine 4 pitch actuator at 81.7 seconds. of the design loaded velocity limit of 18.3 degls. Actuator loading throughout flight again reflects the low vehicle disturbances experienced. The maximum torque observed was -12,246 N-m (-9,,032 lb,f-f,t) on engine 4 near IECO. This torque is SO% of the design value,for the: component and torque near max Q was approximately 26.8% of the stall torque: The largest roughly 25% of the only -7,717 N-m (-5,692 ibf-ft) on engine 4, which'is T'ne differential currents to the servo valves ranked from design limit. 6.9% to 9*95X of the rated current during S-IB stage flight. The largest differential current observed was on engine 2~pitch actuator and was l,l9 ma The maximum values of each pitch ,and yaw pcrfornance at 84.7 seconds. parameter for any single actuator during liftoff, max Q, outboard en,gine cutoff, and S-XB stage flin,h t are presented in Table 12-W. It should beg noted that, due to the physical mounting of the servo actuators, the polarity with the polarity of rhe average of tfieir position in degrees may not agree gimbal angle plots illustrated in Figure 12-7. Both actuators of the S-IVB stage performed satisfactorily throughout The engine positioning cummands from the the S-IVB stage powred flight. control computer were correct and well within the load, gimbal rate, and torque capabilities of the actuators. The maximum actuator deflection hetween S-IVB stage ignition command and cutoff was 1,25 deg at S-IVB cutoff 0s the yaw actuator, which also had the largest valve current, 10 ma, dt? The maximum torque observed cias 10,390 N-n (7,670 lbf-ft) which that tine. is 18% of the design torque for the component. Table 12-V presents the maxiaxzn of each pitch and ya:* parameter during ignition, cutoff, and S-IVB stage flight.
12.4

LAUSCH VEHICLE GUIDAKE

The overall performance of the guidance system (ST-124N3 stabilized platform systeml launch vehicle digital computer, and launch vehicle data of the telemetered guidance Ar; analysis adapter) was very satisfactory.

144 TABLE 12-W s-IB m.wmR MAxIMuM PERFORMANCE DATA-'-

Gimbal Rate

l+----1.

I
I
I

lbf-ft I I
f

Pitch yaw Pitch YZW

I
I

II
I

*he vaiues represent the maximum from the 4 pitchand 4 are not necessarily frorr8 the same actuator for any par

TASLE 12-V s-m ACTUATORmxmm PARAMETERS

1 Gimbal Rate

145

data is discussed accuracy analysis 12.4.1

The

in subsequent parts of this section. is presented in Volume II (classified)

The guidance system of this report,

GiIID.UCE
flight

ASD SAVIGATIO:< SCHFE?RPERFORNA~CE ANALYSIS with no anexpected anomalies. Howver, the; flighiprogram to deviate from the These five events are discussed below:

program functioned five events occurred which caused LVDC/LVDA prc-flight simulations.

data and Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) 1. Range tracking telemetry data show a disagreement of approximately -1.4 m/s in Z (crossrange) velocity at liftoff +6 seconds. From 6 set on, the two velocity curves agree, but are biased b- -1.4 m/s, This can be seen in Figure 12-18, The platform accelerometer cried in its input to the Launch Vehicle Data Adapter (i,~Dzi). the space-fixed cross 2. At S-IVR ignition, approximately 30 mjs more negative than predicted This may have been caused by a thrust misalignment, just 3. Program 3 set short detection of ENRC occurred of program backup time. range velocity (is) was in 6D-LVDC/tVDA Simulations. than nominal az:d

27 set later

occurred earlier than the GD-LVDC/LVDA prediction; 4. S-IVR cutoff hoi;iePi:er, end condliions were quite good. The early cutoff time was due, to late E?IRC, errors in fuel load, and an increase over predicted thrust. that the X fine gimbal angle reasonableness 5. Figure 12-19 reveals test limits were excetdcd at 610.972, 611.1312, and 611.053 see; and the X backup coarse gimbal was selected as programmed. The X backup coarse gimbal angle values and X fine gimbal angle values agreed during this time period, A yaz EDS rate gyro spike of 6 deg/s occurred at 61Cl.90 set; a rate of 10 deg/s is required for the reasonableness test limits to be exceeded. The frequency response of the measurement channel is limited, allowing mly 55 to 65% of this signal to be telemetered at the time in question. It is concluded that the hardware and program reacted as programmed to the by the impingement of the high angular rates imparted to the S-IVB/IU exhaust plume of the spacecraft service raodule engine. 12,4.2 12.4.2.1 GUIDAKE SYSTE?+ CO?POSENT AEALYSIS

LVDC/LVDA AKALYSLS for the AS-202 flight. No

The LVDC and LVDA performed as predicted hardware malfunction w.x. identified,

Twelve error monitor words were observed in the LVDC data that indicated a failure occurred, Each was discounted because the word was not substantiated

146 LYDC Telemetry Range Track

2 Velocity 0.5

(m/s)

----

4.5

-la0

-1.5
.

-2.0

-2.5

4 FIGURE 12-18

/ Range Time (set) Z (CROSS RANGE) VELOCIW

147 OLast Reasonable Reading (Processed) QReadings which Failed Reasonableness

Test (Processed)

x Fine Gimbal

Angle

InPut

(pUh?S~

I
Upper Bound for Reasonableness Test
8QO

600

500

Lower Bound
400

for

610.75
300 j 0 40

set
80 120

I
160

I
200 240

I 280 320

Time (ms)
FIGS 12-19

X FIN", GIXBAL ANGLE INPES

148

indication by ;I complement in,? error monitor word, and/or because the failure in only one of two sets of time overlapping data from differb";% cotlr:iint>d s the spurious an indicated
along the

channels

accelerom,eter cwnts between 1.8?5 and velocityincreasza of 114 m/s, as an During this tj ime interval, 2 axis. the A and I3 remained within + - 1 count of

\!ords were observed that, indiei MO minor loop error Cross Over Detector (COD) counter disagreement; however, error was observed that indicates that the X'fine gimbal reasonableness te:st at 610.972 seconds.' This reasol indication was substantiated by a Mode Code 24 word indicates that X backup coarse gimbal was selected. The X fine and the X backup accelerometer values telemetered are the result of vehicle motion. coarse girrbal angle substantiate that vail

All Mode Code 24 words observed from'611.514 SI (LOS) indicate ,that the X backup coarse gimbal was I X attitude error commands for the remainder of the : Analysis of the data available indicates that the real time processor, the power supply and all analog the digital telemetry interface, and the switch-selector functioned satisfactorily. 12.ir.2.2 ST-124213 STABILIZED PL.4TFORM AXALYSIS

Spurious count pickups were evident on the Z accelerometer at 2.5 The performance characteristics of the ST-124M3 and other seconds. associated quipment indicated nominal performnnce. The accelerometer and gyro pickup output signals indicate significant oscillations during liftoff, max ;I? and Mach 1 time periods. These oscillations during these time intervals are typical vibration response characteristics noted in all previous vehicles. The excitation voltage levels, temperatures, and pressures of the ST-124113 were within design limits and performance was as predicted. The and -0.8 velocity velocity difference Z velocity profile exhibited two steps in velocity of -0.6 m/s n/s at 7.59 ses and 5.48 set, respectively. The range tracking profile for this same region does not exhibit the observed steps noted in LVDC telemetry data, The observed velocity of i.4 m/s between range trackin g data and LVDC telemetry data

14')

remained velocity vibration.

as a bias throughout steps are indications

the remainder of flight, The obser\wd of a sensitivity of the 2 accelerometer

to

Vibration daia in the region of the suspected Z aeceleromerer anomaly exhibited a vibration magnitude in cross range (Z axis) larger than those noted in the AS-201 and AS-203 flights. The frequency of the vibration was in the region of 42 Hz. The vibration frequency in cross range (7, axis) of the AS-202 is near the resonant frequencyof the Z accelerometer control The magnitude of this vibration, together with the proximity of its loop. frequency to the resonant frequency of the 2 accelerometer loop, probably caused the 2 accelerometer to hit the stops and produced,the indicated velocity steps noted in the LVDC telemetry of the 2 velocity. LWC telemetry of the X velocity profile from AS-203 before liftoff indicated a step in velocity of 0,55 nfs which also appears to be related to vibration during this region. To prevent this type of malfunction from recurring in near future f 'lights, the fo Ilowing three stop-gap fixes,are being considered:, I.. Change the flight program f&the interval from GRR to GRR +lO set to use a sm,aller value for the accelerometer reasonableness test constant in order to detect accelerometer malfunctions of this type without response. 2. Place IU bulkhead. a stiffening plate between float the ST-124M3 platform stops from the present and the 2 3 deg

3. Change the accelerometer to a proposed - 6 degrees. i

The vibration analysis is based on four of the nine signals requested. Tn the X direction, or downrange, during the time period of -0.99 to 0.00 set ) the maximum level of vibration on the mounting frame of the platform v-as 0.8 G at about 150 Hz. The average magnitude was about 0.3 Grms from 20 tZ900 Hz,withnegligible effects thereafter up to 2000 Hz. At 63 to 64 set of flight, the average vibration level was 0.2 G,,, from 20 to 50 Hz, mith a maximum amplitude of O-4 Grms at 50 Hz. From 83 to 86 set of flight time, the vibration had a frequency spectrum from 110 Hz to 400 Hz, with an average level of 0.2 Grms and peaks occurring at 150 Hz and 290 Hz of 0.45 G,,. Vibration levels on ihe support along the X axis, during 83 to 84 set, have a frequency spectrum from 150 to 300 Hz, with transmissibility or amplification of the vibration acceleration level from the support through the mounting frame into the platform, The vibration levels of all three directions. in the cross range direction The time from -0.99 to 0.00 appeared the largest set, on the support

,:

,,, .~,,,~,,, :,,,,: ,., ,,,,, ii,ii ,,:_ ,, ,.,,

150 in the Z direction, indicates a maximum amplitude of 1.0 Grms at 150 Hz, The mounting frame at this same time interval acted as a good attenuator The,averagc level on since little vibration was evident on the platform. the frequency, the support w&s 0.35 Grms from 25 to 450 Hz. At 63 t,o 64sec, spectrum of 20 to 75 HZ wx identical ar the support and at~the mounting frame, indicating a transmissibility of otie. The maximum .leVel at' this ,lOO,,Hz and up, time was 0.3 Grms at 50 Hz. At the higher frequencies, the mounting frame attenuated the vibration 1~61s as ex@erienced at the support.

13.0 13.1 SUNNARY

SEPAItlTION

S-IB/S-IVB separation x+as accomplished a$ planned and the sequence executed in the desired time period. The S-IVB engine cleared the interstage approximately l-07.set following ,the zeparation command, 0.97 set following first motion. Separation transients were small and within the design requirements. S-IVB/sppar:ecraft separation occurred,at 598.7 seconds. Small transients were imparted to the S-IVE during separation but were within design requirements. The S-IX% was subject+ to sevfre torques 12 set following separation; these were produced by impingement of Service Propulsion System (SPS) exhaust gases on,the Spacccraft,LBf Adapter (SLA) panels. 13.2 13.2-l S-IBIS-IVB SEPARATIOhl

lULLAGE MOTOR PE~~~~~ at

Ullage motor performance was satisfactory and allmotors,were jettisoned properly, The ullage motor ignition,command was given 144.03 set and the jettison command was given at 156.22 seconds.
Perfomance

parameters of the S-IVB ullage motors are shown in Table 13-I. The thrust during the action time bf each motor, is presented in Figure 13-l. 13.2.2 RETRO ROCKET ~E~O~~~~~

The retro rockets are parallel-mounted on the intersrage with a nominal nozzle cant angle of 9.5 degrees. The motors are Thiokol TE-M-29-4 Recrilit and are furnished 3y Douglas Aircraft Company. Separation was accomplished satisfactorily; however, the burn time of retro rocket 2, between positions II and III, ws less than the specification, considering a grain temperature of 288.7OK at 60.96 km (209,000 ft> altitude. The short burn time was confirmed by pictures taken by the onboard camera looking forward in the-intersrage. The other three retro rockets performed within the specified limits. the was one pare The retro rocket thrust,impulse, and burn times were calculated from chamber pressure of each rocket {Table Is-II>. Average performance calculated considering all four rockets. Since the burn time for rocket was out oi tolerance, the average ts biased and does not romfavorably with nominal in all cases.

6.80 4.10 04 1 1,220

5.01 1.51 620 900

L,Y -

16,325 3,670~

22,685 5,100

69

63,765

Wimr W:Lme

between between

10% start 10% start

transient

transient

max. max.

chamber chamber

pressure pressure

and 10% of cutoff and the decrease

'transient max. chamber pressure. to~75% of max. &amber ~pressure.

153

Ullage

Motor

Thrust

flOC h')

Ulb.Ee &,tOr Ignition Commnd 344.03 se-2

Time From Ullage

Motor

Ignition

Cormand (see)

1.5 5

13.2.3

SEPARATION DYWIICS

S-IB/S-IVB separation was completed at 145.30 set when the S-IVB J-2 engine cleared the interstage, 1.07 set following separation command. The separation system functioned satisfactorily and all events occurred as planned and within the desired time period. Pertinent separation sequence of events is presented in Figure 13-3. Separation acceleration and relative velocities were determined from extensomcter and accelerometer data and agree closely with the separation predictions as shown in Figure 13-4. The reconstructed longitudinal translation between the S-IB and S-IVB stages agrees with the predicted separation as'shown it Figure l3-5. The lateral translation between the S-IB/S-IVB during separation required 0.148 m (5.85 in) of the 1.524 m (60 in) lateral clearance available. errors and angular velocities At separation command, the attitude of the S-IVB were within the design limits of 1 deg and I. deb/s, respectively. During and immediately following separation, the attitude errors and angular rat-s remained relatively low and no problems were encountered in controlling the S-IVB through these transients. The maximum angular velocities measured during the separation period were 0.4 deg/s nose down in pitch, 0.3 deg/s nose left in yaw, During these and 0.2 deg/s counterclockwise (looking forward) in roll, transients, the auxiliary attitude control system (AACS) corrected roll At J-2 engine steady state thrust attainment, the thrust properly, vector control system began correcting the pitch and yaw transients. S-IVB stage attitude errors and angular rates during separation are presented in Figures 13-6 ard 13-7, respectively. 13.3 S-IVB/SPACECEAFT SEPARATION

The GM configuration was successfully separated from the S-IVB/IU at 598.7 set of flight time, 10.2 set following J-2 engine cutoff command. A LOX tank programmed blowdown occurred between 589.1 set and 596.8 seconds. This programed vent, along rjith the Y-2 engine cutoff transient, imparted maximum attitude errors of 0.S deg nose up in pitch, 2.3 deg nose right in yaw, and 0.5 deg clockwise (looking forward) in roll.

Thrust 20

(lOOr, N)

15

\--. ,9

Thrus,t 7 .-I Predicted L (288.7*K I Grain I Tempsrature 610 km) -

(LO,00 Lb)

10

0 14

(r.4

144.6

14.4..8

I I I 145.0 145.2 145.4 Range Time (set), FIGURE 13-2 RFTRO ROCKET THRUST

145.6

145.

14i.2

Enable S-IB Propellant revel Sensors Command Inboard Engine Cutoff Command Outboard Engines Cutoff Command Ullage
S-ration,

135.29 139,57 143.47

Ignition

Command

144.03

Command

htrorucket First Motion

90% Thrust

144.32 144.33

Separation

Comple,te

135

137

r---&-F
I

141

Range Time (secj FIGURE 13-3 S-IBIS-IVB SEPARATION SEQUEKE OF EXWNTS

!,1

!/ I i:.; iic .3

- ,i

shown in Figure 13-8, were within the preflight These attitude errors, specified acceptable limit of 5.0 deg at the time of spacecraft separation. At 610.4 se=, the SPS of the spacecraft was ignited. The impingement of the exhaust gases on S-IVB and SLA panels imparted the attitude rates shown in Figure 13-9 to the S-NE. The first second of the SPS burn imparted tin average external torque of approximately 79,993 N-m (59,000 lbf-ft) on the S-IVB, pitching the S-IVB nose up and to the right. At approximately 611 sac, the HA panels on position planes III and IV were either forced off the configuration or back past the nominal 45 deg position on the configuration such that the Impingement At this time, the attitude effects were significantly reversed. rates t<ere reversed in sign, and the configuration pitched nose down The onboard TV camera video tape playback substantiated and to the lef:. that the SLA panels on position planes III and IV were absent from the nominai field of view at this time. The attitude rate observed during this reversal of attitude errors would result from a maximum external torque of approximately 113,888 N-m (84,000 lbf-ft). Vehicle attitude information indicates the pitch excursion peaked to a value of 61.9 deg the yaw excursion reached a maximum value of 29.2 deg at 632 set; at 626 set; and the roll excursion reached a value of 23.5 deg at 624 S&e Section 12.0 for additional information. seconds.

Yaw Attitude

Error

Cdeg)

-2 -3

580

590

600

610

Range Time (set).*

Roll Attitude

Error

(deg)

*Note:

AS-201 data has been shifted

to compare with AS-232 tines

164

0 -2

580

III
590 600 Range 610 Tim <set) 620 630 640

Angul3'i Velocity (+ Rose Rigttc) 6 II

4 2

Yaw (deg/s)

-2 -4

-61> ml

590

600

I 610

I
620

I
630

640

14.0 14.1 SiNNARY

VEHICLE ELECTRIC?,L SYSTtXS

The electrical systems of the AS-202 launch vehicle operated satisfactorily during the entire flightj with the exception oi ;I probable short circuit in the Q-ball. Battery periorlnance--including voltages, and temperature--was satisfactory and remained within predicted currents, tolerances. The master measuring voltage supplies performed satisfactorily. The secure command system and range safety decoder \ias operable during flight. All Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) firing units responded correctly. 14.2 S-IB STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

Inflight power;for the S-13 stag- e is supplied by two ZS-volt, zincsilver-oside batteries, designated lDl0 and lD20. Each battery is rated The power and distributic.r system of S-IB-2 con_ 2000 amp-minutes. sisted of batteries, measurement voltage supplies, distributors, plug J-boxes, and interconnecting circuitry. Three mzster measuring voltage supplies are utilized ro furnish a precisely regulated reference voltage to the telemetry system. Each power supply converts 2S'vdc to a regulated 5 vdc reference voltage for use in the instrumentation measuring system. Transition from the S-I&l to the S-IB-2 ,configuration involved minor changes to the electrical networks. These changes included incorporating a second propulsion system distributor (9A2) to provide for a third TOP switch, replacing the Mod I s<+itch selector tgith a Mod II-5 switch selector, and replacing the range safety command system with a secure command systesn and range safety decoder, The voltage for each battery averaged 28 vdc throughout the normal flight period. Battery voltage drops correlated with significant vehicle events. The 1DZC battery current averaged approximately 35 amps, and the ID10 battery current averaged approximately 45 amps, throughout powered flight. The voltage and current profiles for the batteries arc presented in Figure 14-l. The following tabulaticn indicates battery amp-min and as a percent of rated capacity: Battery lDl0 1020 Capacity (amp-min) 2000 2 .I00 Consumption (amp-min) (to separation) 120 (6.0%) 110 (5.57:) power consumption Percent Consumed (thru playback) 266 (13.X) 210 (10.X) in

I I

I upper l&it

I I Battery v01*,sg0.,

----I ircdiictcd I '

----

j,-h--J-

167 All Thrust OK PI-cssure (TOP) .switches and Exploding Bridge i~~irc (EBN) units functioned pi-operly. The average charge time for the retro rocket EBlr' units was 0.76 second. The charge time for the separation 2Bii was 0.88 second. The destruct EBiJ units indicated no charge. The S-IB stage switch selector Mod 11-5, used tr determine event times in place of the switch selector >lxl I, performed as expected. 14.3 S-IVB STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEN

The AS-202 S-IVB stage electrical power system consisted of four batteries, one LOX and one LH2 chilldown inverter, a static inverterconverter, two 5 vdc excitation modules, and seventeen 20 vdc excitation modules. Differences are discussed in Appendix A between 201 and 202. Forward 1 respectiveiy. respectively. tion in amp-min Battery Fwd* 1 Fwd. 2 Aft Aft 1 2 and 2 batteries were rated at 4800 and 300 amp-min, Aft 1 and 2 batteries were rated at 3480 and 1350 amp-min, The following tabulation indicates battery power consumpand as a percent of rated capacity: Capacity (amp-min) 4800 300 3480 1350 Consumption (amp-min) 672 33 132 540 Percent Consumed 14 11 3.8 40

Battery voltage and current profiles for the entire flight are presented in Figure 14-2. The composite average temperature of the batteries from the switch to internal power until S-IVB engine start command was 303.3"K, The temperature of each battery at S-IVB engine cutoff and the maximum and minimum temperatures of each battery for the duration of the flight were as follows: Battery Temperatures Fwd. 1 Fwd. 2 hft S-IVB Engine Cutoff 312.7 316.6 302.2 311.1 311.1 305.5 (OK) 1 Aft 2

305,5 305.5 300.0

323*3 323.3 302.7

Maximum Mi?si~Urn

tllc? The minimum temperature of each battery occurred at -30.0 set: maximum temperature of each battery occurred at 627.0 set, with the esccption of the forward battery 1, which reached its marirnum temperature at 941.0 seconds. These temperature levels and the current and vol tape profiles indicate that the batteries performcd.sa~isfactorily throughout the flight, The static invcrtcr-converter and the chilldown invorters performed the static inserter-coll~7crtcr satisfactorily. At umbilical disconnect, the voltage remained at this level through PIT :ao1tagc was 116.0 vat; The LB2 chilldown inverter syscfm activate to S-IW engine cutoff. supplied power satisfactorily to the LH2 chilldown pump; the voltage temperature range was a nominal 53.0 vat at 400.0 Hz, and the operating The LOX chiildown inverter supplied power satiswas 255.5% to 269*4R. the voltage was 3 nominal 53.0 vat factorily to the LOX chilldown pump; at 400.2 Hz, and the operating temperature ranf,e was 250-S% to 263.3'R. All EBW firing units performed satisfactorily. The ullage rocket and normal ullage rocket ignition EBW units were charged at 140.27 set, The d&e rodcct ignition occurred, on command, at 144.03'seconds. jettison E& units \~crc charged at 144.4 SEC and were discharged at 156.22 seconds. This and other data indicated that all three ullage rockets were jettisoned satisfactorily. perly The electrical portions of the S-IVB control to the commands generated by the sequencer system responded and the Instrument as expected. functioned proUnit.

The S-IVB stage switch selector performed data indicated that both range safety receivers the entire flight. 14.4 INST~bliEVI UKCT ELECTRICAL SYSTEK

Telemetry properly during

The AS-202 electrical system was similar to the AS-201 and ~~-203 The Emergency Detection System (EDS) was flown in a closedsystems. l~oop configuration for the first time. A television system was located in the Instrument Unit and Spacecraft Adapter for viewing spacecraft Filters were added in the conseparation and adapter panel deployment. trol signal processor for AS-202 and AS-203. The voltage and current profiles and predicted values for the Ii3 batteries are presented in Figure 14-3. The 6D20 and 6~40 batteries received an extra load of approximately 3 amp each from about 93 to 112 set and of approximately 11 amp each from about 115 to 122.5 seconds. 1t appears that a short circuit at the Q-ball caused the added loads. The 6DlO battery temperature (See iCDS section 16 for more details,) The temperature measurement appears to be in error due to a scale shift. at liftoff was below the cold plate temperature and that of the other

I.70

--Volts
29

AStWl gredicred Amperes (dc)

(dc)

6Dl.O Battery

28

27 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

25

Range Time (see) 6020 Battery

Volts 29

fdc)

Amperes

(de) 4.5

35

27

25

26

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1c

Range Time (SW) VOits

29

(dc)

6030 Battery

Peres (dc) AmF

,35

Range Time (see) Volts (dc) &D&O Battery Amperes (dc)

26

Range Time (SC) FfGliiE l&i-3 BATTERY VOLTAGE ii&% CURRENT--IU

6D30 bD40 18,000 367 1*7

ThE The 5 vdc measuring power supply operated within,tolerance. power supply,operat@d at,55.5 vdc, which was within 56 vdc ,platform tolerance. Figure ,14-&shows the,:approximate variations of output Which ~occurred during voitage as a function of time .I, The&variations, periods of high vibrat lion (liftoff max Q), were similar to those and had no adverse effect on operations. witnessed during the AS-'201 f :light, The IU switch Distributor,performance disclosed no discrepancies, selector ,operated properly. All output pulses were received except for by other two during retro firing. Xhese miss ing pulses trere confirmed All battery xx tftages remained I+ithin limits, and all measurements. flight. battery temperature rises we& normal, during the entire

Volt8

(dc)

-----Imex Q Liftoff

Peridd I

Period

/
56.5

Normal Period

Flight

-I

k I

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1660

It

Range Time (set) FIGURE 14-4 +6051 BUS VOLTAGE (56 vdc)

15.1

SUNMARY The IU stage of vehicle AS-202 <Iid n*t I:;)\rc> .:i c~~;yy~si~s,~~ ~~,t~i;l~:;~;;~

i ,"~,._~." receiver system. This system, which 1s used !itl- ~~:::r.i;;rii,;~ Ifp:I;rt::i~p~i, is ,tf E, c 1 Telcmctry <lat.! i IT,,,{ L~',"ii,l,,: t:11, : i;i, C.' required only for orbital flights. redundant Secure Range Safety Cormand I Destrt,~cr S;SC~J:-:~; ,,:: b.,;:li 111::' gyil \ S-IB and S-IVB stages were ready to perform their fur?r~iri~:zt::~ ;-> ;>i i f 1, { &', $ 1: conditions had required, and fh;:r iLi; :~;;I~ i <~j: <:,:Jon command, if flight nect system responded properly to command. 15.2 COMXAND DESTRUCT SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE S:;sC~ms (RSCQS) primary p~!rpt~s~ vi?hiclu! flight safety romfiirind wrc of upon wcrc

Identical Secure Range Safety Command Dsstrdct The operational on the S-IB-2 and S-IVB-202 stages. this system is to provide a means of terminating thr radio command from <he ground. Three types of range required for this ursnanncd flight, as follows: I.. thrust 2. Arm/Cutoff termination. Destruct - Arming - Firing of of the Exploding Bridge

Wire

(EBl,l)

and

the the

E&W. cormand decoding equipment from its

3. Safe poraer supply.

- Disconnecting

During the AS-202 flight, telemetry indicated that the command antenna, receivers/decoders, destruct controllers, and EBiI' firing units would have performed satirfactorily if needed. The lob level field measurements for secure command receivers 1 and 2 indicated that both receivers had adequate signal strength throughout the flight. EPA! firing were in the required state of readiunit data indicated tha t the units no range safety conmnnds were ness. Because the flight was successful, required; therefore, all data except receiver signal strength telc:metry remained unchanged during rrhe flight. At 590.7 set, the "s:ifing" commend and signal strength telemetry data dropped to the tclcmctry was initiated, noise level, which indicates system deactivation.

16.0

IXERGESCY DETECTIOK

SYSTEH (EDS)

LAUNCH RANGE ,MCC

PA0

SC

ATTITUDE ERROR Exl

1 I

S-IV

177

TABLE 16-I Sm.TCB SFLECTOR FLIXCTIO@S PERTINE

Excessive S-IB S'IB

Rate (P,P'or

R), Auto-Abort

l&bit",:: Enapt? :

:' " " ', "'134,;6S ,:,:' ':",' ",',," ',, :,1 134; 88~ ,' " k.68, 'e '139.?7,,,,: : '139.77,

,",

,':',

Engine-Out, Engine-Out Engine

Auto Bborr, Inhgbit Auto Abdrt, Cutbff Inhibit

,:,,, ;,: ,,, "

,' " " ,,, ,' :" ,, y ,,' ,,ll,,' _ : ,:

2nboard Q-Ball

Power Off'

178

TABLE 16-11
AS-202

TBLEMEXEKED

EDS SIGNALS

Meas.

No,

K9-602 (engines
KLO-602 1-8)

EDS S-IB (Engines

One Engine 2-8)

Out

KU-602

KU-602 K13-602 ~14-602 from K15-602

K16-602

EDS +6D95 Bus Energized SC Cutoff Cutoff of S-IB of S-IB 01: 0

SDS or Manual EDS or Manual or s-IVB

!a?-602 ~10-602 K57-603 Km-603

EDS-Manual Cutoff of S-IB S-IVB Engine Armed

EDS-Manual Cutoff of S-IB or S-IVB Engine Armed (60 set timer) Q-Ball Q-Ball on Indication on Indication Bus 6D21 Bus 6041 Etoff On at Liftoff Off at 139.77

16.6
Ti:e

EDS RATE GYROS ,I

The performance of the angular ox:errafe 'sensin2 noise filters which b~eru added after AS-201 in eliminating the hazard of ab-ort due to noise Mach l/max Q regions. t!le maximum unfiltcrcd Figure 162 presents rate gyro packages compared with the filte: settings for AS-202 were + 5 deg/s in the pitch deg/s in roll. Typical fyltered and unfil AS-202 are shoran in Figure 16-3. At SPS ignition, axis, and an angular negative direction. the S-IVB/IU was disturbed rate of approximately 5 deg This resulted in the closur

16.7

L,1UlKX VEHICLE ATTITUDE REFERENCE MONITORING

The angular displacement of the launch vehicl,e is measured by thigimbal angles on the ST-124 platform, A rcasonablcness test is perf~ormcd on the rates-of-change of gimbal angles before acceptance by the LVDC. The stabilized platform has redundant picl>offs on the gimbals, If unreasonable angular rates iire measured in the primary measuriq mode (fine pickoff), the last valid reading is used and the system switchi?s to the backup mode (coarse pi&off). ,Failure of ,the coarse pi&off measurement to pass the reasonableness test results in indication that the launch vehicle attitude reference has failed. The reasonableness Iimits on the AS-203 vehicle ~wre set so that an angular displacement in excess of 0.4 deg must occur in tit icosr three 40 ms minor computation cycles in a major computation cycle sensing is switched tr the 'baclwp n&c. (approximately 1 set) before Reasonableness test failures must then occur an additional 15 times ieiiure ins considcrcd during the next second before a guidance reference to exist.

180

TABLE 16-111 SWITCH A2TUA3 s-IVB

181 Maximum Pitch Rates (de&/s)

67

T unfiltered Control

201

202 Liftoff

203

Liftoff

5 4 3 2 J 0 201 202 Liftoff 203

FIGURE 16-2

UNFTLTEREDGYRDWITES VS FILTERED EDS O-DTPUTS

--

-I

.,,, I.,,_

Range Time (xc)

155

obable area of melfunclion. glated ourpur side of e series

EDS NON-RWJNDAM

Q-BALL

FIGURE 16-5

Q-BALL SIMPLIFIED

SCHEMATIC

1ST

Control REIS Amplitude (deg,s)

Rate Gyro Signal

Noise Level

Range Time

(SW)

EfMSAmplitude

(m/s*)

Control

Accelerometer

Signal

Noise

Level

0 Range Time
fsec)

FIGURE 16- 6 IU EXTEWL SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL, CONTROL RATE GYRO, AND ACCELEROMETERNOISE LEVELS

188

of Figure l-6 S!IOG:S an ENS time history accelerometers during boost. The trend to that of AS-201.

of the pitch and yax control in the curves is very similar

Figure 16-7 shows the noise envelope of the roll rate gyros from 57 to 65 set and the power spectral density in the Mach 1 region. The refcrcncc gyro nxiximum observed angular rate in roll was 9.1 deg/s peakto-peak on AS-202 as compared to 11.6 des/s peak-to-peak for AS-201, As may be seen in the lower portion of this figure, the AS-202 frequency spectrum shows a marked signal attenuation above 20 Hz which is due in part to the addition of filters placed in the telemetry instrumentation tit-cuit since the AS-201 flight. The SDS filtered output of the roll rate gyros fed to the EDS rate ewifch is also shown in this figure. The output signal of this EDS filter has a gain of 0.707 at 5 Hz and showed little or no amplitude response above 25 Hz.

17.0 17.1 SUMXARY

STRUCTURES

The postflight predicted longitudinal k+d and~bending moment for the iiSvehicle compares favorably with the flight ,me,as;red acCelVehicle loads due to'the cc qkbined Longitudinal crometer and strain data. therefore,, load and bending moment were below limit design valucs,,and, limit design tbc stress levels in key structural members were beloktheir Mci%sured vehicle first and second bendin .g,@de,:data compare VkllW. There was no indicqtitin l%vorably with dynamic test data. ,, that Pogo occurred. The fin bending and torsion modes mea!qred,~,~on :,.%:~'+?2: comliaywell with those from AS-201 and AS-2133. The S- IE,:S-IVB,'atid IU ,stage structure and component vibrations were a& expected. H-l,and J-2 :engine and Vibrati ,Oll le vels on rhc structure ,, vibrations were as expected. inrernally mounted components of the IU 'we+ k$t bin the design criteria; 17.2 17.2,1 TOTAT, VEHICLE LOADS AND MOMENTS LONGITUDINAL LOADS

"

were Vehicle postflight predicted longitudinal :f orce,,distributions forces cc?mputc!d using the mass characteristics df AS-20 2,and the applied from the Flight trajectory dst2 recorded during SIIB stage,,btirn. The, shoti agreement Longitudinal nccclcrations obtained from ,the 'ana lysis wit-11 values measured during flight at all tit&p oitits and reached a masimum of 39,s m/s2 at 139.57 see, the time of IECO. Comparisons bctwcen the poscflight predicted ions zitudinal 'force and th:;t derived from the strain mcvsurements at various 5 stations are presented in Figure 17-l for the conditions of maximum bending and maX3.rnum compres-, sion which occurred at 39.5 and 139.57 set, respectively. The strain located 120 data ;!t Stations 30.4 m and 32.0 m results from 3 gzw,,, fl<?~~ ;~parL radially at each station. because only three-gau ges were used, .c! ti1c :tj;r<x?ncn~t i.s as good as could be expected. The 24 strain gauges lociit~~,d 3c station 23.9 m show more consistent results. The postflight predicted load at Station 23.9 m of 5,909,018 N than the design loads analysis (i>3L'S,400 lbf) at IECO is 6.4'1, greater This difference is the result of \-aluc of 5,5557829 3 (1,249,000 lbf). 3 xiii iSkIt increase of 104,7SO kg (23,100 lbm) above Sta. 23.9 mfor the used in the design AS-202 configurstion as compared to the configuration lir;:ds :in3l,vsis.

Longitudinal 8000

Force

(1000 N)

r
I

---T ax M Q a B
T

7000

= = = = = =

39.5 set 15.2 ml 0,435 10,087 N/m2 3.685 deg 0.673 deg

6000

a,

= 139.57 SEC = 39.5 ids2

5000

4000

3000

2ooc

1OOC

70

Vehi .cle Station

(m)

li

FIGURE 17-l

VERICLE MKITUDI~AL

FORCE DISTRIBUTIOIU

192 AS-202 longitudinal load time history at Sta. 23.9 m, obtained for vehicles AS-201 from strain data, is compared CO the time histories and AS-203 in Figure 17-2.
The

17.2.2

BENDING MOMENTS

Table 17-L. ' The vehicle maximum bending moments ,arc summar ized,in The maximum bending moment occurred at 39.5 so and was primarily ac in the yav plane. The bending moment in the pitch p,: lane re,achPd a,'peak,value, later in flight, at 75.7 seconds. The postflight p redicted,a,,cceleratlons and bending moment are compared !dith the measure,d,a ccelerations and strain xe'postf1lght predicted, bending moment at 39.5 see in Figure17-31 T.1 bending moment values for the pitch and ya'k<,,co,mponent and the' resultant ~~ ,' curves are based on the flight parameter ,n'indi&ted on ,thefigure. The me,asured strain data at Stations 30.4 m and 32.0 m are the resu1ts L from 3 gauges located 120 deg aparl t'radially at ,ea,ch station. Became only 3 gauges were used, the agreement i s as good as could,be expected, The 24 strain gauges 1ocated at Station 23.9 m,show more consis'tent results. 17.2.3 BODY BENDING OSCILLATIONS

The AS-202 iLight body bending responsc'amplit ude'i were low and ,' comp.ared favorably with the AS-201 fligh t,data,,and the'dynamic test first, and second bending mode data. The highest amiIEtude,, in the O-10 ,Hz range, was 0.066 G,,,,,, recorded by a mca'surem6 :nt on the booster, center ,, tank at Sta. 22.7 m. The pitch and yati conditions wer'e investigated and a Ei:tter bandx4idth of O-66 Hz was used for ,data eva luation. Figure 17-4, SbOGJs the AS-202 flight modes compared to the dynam ic te'st modes for' the pitch and yaw conditions. Some of the point scattering can be attributed to coupling of the tank cluster modes with the main bending modes and to the random input during flight, as compared to the sinusoidal input during dynamic test. Figure 17-5 shops vehicle response amplitude at the iirst and second bending modes frequencies for the pitch and yaw conditions. The figures reflect peak amplitude occurring in the regions of Mach 1 and maximum dynamic pressures. In general, the yaw response amplitudes are slightly greater than the pitch amplitude, except for the booster center tank, Station ?2.7 m.
17.2.4

LONGTTDDINAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

(POGO)

The predominate frequencies and amplitudes at specific time points during S-IR and S-IVB stage powered flight rgere determined by RAVAN analysis, usin" solcctcd longitudinal measurements which had suitable rcspclls?. ThcCpredominant frequencies are shown in Table 17-II.

194

TRBLE 17-n LONGITIJDIML RESPONSE FREQUENCIES

Vehicle

Station

Location

of Representative

Structural

Measurement

(m)

Longitudinal

Predominant

Frequencies

(Hz)

-1.89 to
0.10

9.0 10.5 18.0 2 1 . i:: 22.0 23.0 8.5 ti 5 19.J 22.0 24.0

9.0
19.5 12.0 15.5

9.0
12.0

23.0 24.0 9.0

10.0

19.5 22.0 9*0 10.0 17.5 19.0 21.0 23.0 24.0 9.0
18.0

18.5 19.5 22.0 23.0 9.0 10.0 17.5 20.5 21.5 22.5 23.5 8.0 10.0
18.0 19.5

8.5 17.0 19.0 20.0 21.5 8.5 9.5 16.5 19.5 22.5

9.0 x3.0 20.5 21.5 23.5 9.5 17.5 20.5 22.5 23.5

0.10 to

2.11

17;5 20.3 22.0 23.0 8.0 9.0 10.5

19.5

2.51 t" 4.50

S.0 9.0 17.5 20.0 22.0 23.0 s*o 12.0 22.0

8.5
10.0 18.0

9.5
18.5

22.5 24.0 8.0 11.5

21.0

20.5 21.5 22.5 24.0 7.5 9.5

11.5

22.5 23.5 8.5

12.0

20.5 23.0 8.0 9.0 12.0 22.0 23.0 9.0 12.5 22.5 23.5 24.5
8.5

20.5 21.5 22.5 23.5 8.0 9.5 12.0 22,o 24.0 8.5 9.5 12.0 21.5 24.0 8.5 12.0 21.0 22.0 24.0 8.0
11,5

63.0 65.0

23.5 9.0 13.0 21.5 T3.O S.5 11.5 i2.S 22.0 ii 5 8.5
12.0

22.5 24.0 8.0 9.0

11.5

22.0 23.5 8.5

12.5 21.0

7s.o co so.0

22,s 23.5 24. j S,S

12.0 21.0 22.5 23.3

22.0 24.0 5.5

12.0 21.5

23.5
S,S 22.S 21.0

23.5 24.5 S.5 13.0

2i.O 22.0 23.S

23.5

11.5 12.5 21.5 23.5 9.0 12.5 21.0 23.0 9.5 12.5 21.5 23.0

S.5 12.0 21.s 23.S s.0

i2.i 10.0 li.5 23.5

21.0

S.S
12.0 22.0

23.0

9.0 11.5 12.5 21.5

the engine chamber pressure and strucIn the stability evaluation, tural vibration curve form wese inspected for corresponding buildup in amplitude. The liftoff transient period showed some 10 Hz structural vibration, but the amplitudes were not excessive. These amplitudes damped to a very low value by approximately 5 seconds. There wzre small, short duration buildups of amplitude at other transieni of the buildups appear to be due to structural/propuls: therefore, longitudinal instability phenomenon dil The dynamic load factor for the S-1'6 stage el was determined to be 1.06, using the total thru,st holddown arm force. This value compares favorabl. anti gives an indication of a good stagger,t,ti 17.3 17.3.1 S-IB S-IB STAGE AXALYSIS FIN BENDING AND TORSION

The fin bending and torsion characteristics,1 flight. Due to clipped data at liftoff, Mac: flight, the evaluation was limited to definil only _ A frequency range of 0 to 80 Hz ~wa,s'a! _ periods. The predominant frequencies versus vehil 5 and 7 are presented in Figure 17-G., ,These the analysis predictions that no flutter con critical flight are app on AS-201 and AS:203 flights. The maximum ai fins could not be determined due to the data beins expected that maximum amplitude vzould have 01 mas Q portion of flight. The data confirms this, since tudes which caused the data clipping did occur at rhtlsc

the large amplitime poricds,

An amplitude buildup, which occurred at about 125 see, had levels close to the levels recorded during the mainstage portion of flight. Similar buildup occurred at about the same time on AS-201 and AS-203 flights. An investigation, conducted to determine &at caused this buildup, failed to reveal any abnormal reactions that could have contributed to the buildup. The amplitude buildup itself is not cansidcred grf!ta PCS abnormal since AS-201 and ~~-203 data show the same trend: amplitudes normally occur during Mach l/max Q, and there is no i,ndication of detrimental effects to the fins. 17.3.2 S-IT; STAGE VIBRATIOXS excwd vhirh

The S-iB stage vibration environments were normal and did not expected levels. Valid data was received from xhe 22 measurements Tfli recorded the structural and component vibration enviromentsl

200

Predominant 60 ,

Frequencies (Hz) I I

hC

Vehicle FIGURE 17-6

Velccity

(m/s)

FIN BENDING AND TORSION MODES

vibration

environment obtained is summarized in Table 17-111. Vibration envelopes for the S-IB stage structure and components are prcscntcd in Figures 17-7 and 17-8, respectively, The fuel suction li,no measurements, in the component group, were new measurements which Were located on the flange of the suction line near the turbopump and on the suction line in a longitudinal direction. The levels recorded inflight correspond to the levels recorded during stage static testing. The vibration envelopes for the S-IB fin tip structure ! arc shown in Figure 17-9. The data on \+hich these envelopes are base !d did not reveal any unusual levels. 17.3.3 H-l ENGINE VIBRATIONS

The envelopes of H-l engine vibrations, prcsente are resulting composite levels recorded by a total of ments that were located on the S-IB stage engines. normal for these measurements and expected levels,wer 17.4 17.4.1 S-IVB S-IVB STAGE ANALYSIS VIBRATIONS

The locations of the 28 structural and component on the S-IvB-202 stage lgere similar to thosemade on The maximum vibration levels measured at thesevariou summarized in Table 17-U. A time history of the max composite levels (50 to 3,000 Hz) for the structural uremcnts is shown in Figure 17-11. These envelopes comparison with S-IVB-201, Transient vibration was measured at approximately 599 set and 6LO see due to the S-IVB/Spacecraft separation Andy plume impingement from the SPS firing, respectively, The measured levels were lower than those measured at liftoff. 17.4.2 J-2 ENGINE VIBRATIONS

A total Of four vibration measurements were made on the J-2 engine: two at the LOX turbopum;l and two at the LB2 turbopump. The LH2 turbopump vibration measurements Were erratic from 170 to 575 set and, therefore, did not provide valid data for the major portion of S-IVB powered flight. However, valid data was received from 0 to 170 SEC and from 575 to Data during these two intervals indicated approximately 589 seconds. vibration levels comparable to those which occurred on S-IVB-201. The vibration at the LOX turbopump was negligible during S-iB powered flight. A time history of the composite (30 to 3,000 Hz) vibration levels during is shown in S-IVB powered flight, compared to S-IVB-201 and S-IVB-203, Figure 17-11.

202 TABLE 17-111

Max.

S-IB

VIBRATION
Range Time (=) 2.0

SUMMARY

Level ('km:

Remarks

upper structure
E226-11, E227-11 Spider Beam E504-11, E505-11 Engine Thrust '&am E500-4, E501-4, E502-9, E503-9 Thrust Cham, Dome Longitudinal E33-l, E33-3, E31-5, E33-7 ENGINE Lateral Eli-2, 811-6, Eli-4, Eli-8

3.5

Lev,els of 3;5 G,, at liftoff and 1 flight are co 2 GfmS throughout 1 G,, lower than AS-201 values. Liftoff AS-201;, le,v& 2.,8 Grins Less than ,flighC,level? comparable. afe less

6.0 4.8

5.5 34.0

Liftoff and flight,ievels than AL%~Ol'~aluc~.' Liftoff lower at&flight

thati the

5.3

21.0

levekare AS-201 values.

2 Grms

6.4,

5.5

Liftoff and flight levels are slightly'less than the AS-201 values,. Liftoff slightly and flight levels ate less than the AS-201 values. and
to the

Turbine Gear Boxes Elil-1 thru ElZ-7 Instrument ElOl-12, El03-12 Panel F-I: ElOZ-12,

23.7 6.7

21.9 0

Levels of 6.7 G,, at liftoff 2.8 Gms at mix Q are equal

AS-201 values,

Distributor 9A3 E521-9, E522-9, E523-9 Distributor E519-12, 12Al E520-12

4.8

Liftqff and ,flight with AS-201 values.

levels

agree

2.0

94.0

Maximum inflight Level at 94 set exceeded AS-201 flight levels but were lower than AS-201 liftoff levels. These are new measurements. The max level at 112 set "as recorded by a measurement located on the suction line in a longitudinal direction. The other measurements were located on the flange of the suction line aud the max level recorded here was 18.6 G,, at 132 seconds. Liftoff level and 14 G,$ level at M = 1 agree favorably with AS-201 values.

Fuel Surticn Line E536-2, E537-2, 2138-2, E539-2

23.2

12

FIN

Fin Tip E530-20,

17.2 E530-22

4.0

.:

.3

fi1GUF.E 17-9

S-IL FIN VIBRATION ENVELOPES

m -i

f$j

AS-201
AS-202

q
Acceleration
a

(G,, Meas.

1 se Exceede

60

60

100

Range Time (se@

Gonlponents

20

40

60 Range

SO Time

100 (see)

120

FIGTJRFa17-13

IU VIBRATIOX

EHTELOPES

212

18.0

PRESSURE AND THERMAL EWIRO&WENT

The measured S-IB stage pressure and thermal environment was in D general agreement with preflight predictions and data from previous S-IB flights. The base pressure was slightly higher than AS-201 and was close to AS-203 data between 9 and 20 km of altitude; however, the higher level presented no design problems. The S-IVR-202 pressure and thermal environment was as expected. The forward and aft compartment pressure differentials (bursting loads) were within design limits and similar to those of S-IVB-201. The structural temperature rise resulting from aerodynamic heating was similar to that The protuberance-induced heating rates were not so signiof S-IVB-201. ficant as wind tunnel tests indicated--a circumstance also common to AS-201. the presence of an oscillating shock As in previous S-IB flights, of approximately 0.7 set duration ~das detected by the IU acoustic wave microphone. The average sound pressure level during this period was 15G*5 db, with spectral trends similar to those noted on AS-201. Both the Thermal Conditioning Tystem (TCS) and the gas bearing supply system (CBS) operated satisfactorily. The sublimator showed evidence of cooling after 55 set, reaching a maximum cooling rate of 4.6 lcw at 125 seconds. It is believed that moisture entering the external vent holes condensed in the sublimator prior to launch. Future configurations will have inboard vents and a controlled moisture-free environment, which ' should eliminate this problem. IS.2 18o2.1 VEHICLE PRESSURE AND ACOUSTIC Eh~7IRObWENT EXTERXAL SURFACE PRESSLXES

Pressures measured on the LOX tank 03 forward skirt and fuel tank Fl aft skirt are compared v:itlt previous S-IE stage flight data and wind tunnel data in Figure lS-1 (left hand side), Heasured pressures on the LOS tank 03 forward skirt were in good agreement with wind tunnel data at i%ch nmbcrs greater than 1.0. At subsonic Mach numbers, the measured pressurl;; from all S-IB stage flights were lower than the wind tunnel data. The pressures measured on the previous S-IB fli&ts wre generally except in the transonic Pfach number ured pressures rind wind tunnel data betw?en the mo<?el a73d flight vehicle; was not simulatee on the model. In fuel tank aft skirt of AS-202 and higher than the wind tunnel data, region. The differenctj in the measwere due to configuration differences that is, the drain and fill pipe the low supersonic Mach number region,

0 . I,

l.2

!I,;

* .n

..I, K,Cb :Ilm,,,l ?

.I

214

there

appear

to

be

some

other

influencing

factors

chat

came

the

meas-

ured pressures S-IB flights,

to be consistently

lower

than wind

tunnel

data on all

The GO de:: tank fairing surface pressure and panel loading are compi?red with data from previous S-IB flights and design or wind tunnel data in the right-hand side of 'Figure 18-l. The surface pressures indicated good agreement with AS-201 and wind tunnel data, Loading on the 60 deg fairing agreed fairly well with AS-201 data and was well below the design limit. 18.2.2 EXTE;UL'AL ACOUSTICS

Pour external acoustic measurements were flown on AS-202: two on the s-m stage, one on the S-IV5 forward skirt, and one on the IU. All measuremeilt locations were coincident with those on AS-201 and yielded valid data while the acoustic levels were within the range of the instrumerits, with the exception of one measurement. The S-IB lower tail shroud measurement (Sta 1.6 m> yielded valid data to approximately 17 seconds. Figure 18-2 (lower portion) presents the AS-202 acoustic environment at liftoff. The overall sound pressure level (OASPL) between 10 and 3,000 Hz is presented as a function of vehicle statibn'and,indicates an acceptable comparison with the AS-201 and predi,cted values. Pressure spectra at liftoff are compared with design specifications in the upper portion of this figure. All data obtained at liftoff were within the design limits, with the exception of the values below 250 HZ on the IU (Sta 42.8 m>Figure 18-3 presents the OASPL (analog data) during flight for the various instrument locations on the AS-202 vehicle, Also presented arr the check points obtained by digital analysis. The agreement is considered acceptable even though the digital points are generally 2 to 3 db above the analog curves. The dashed curves indicate readings at or below the lower accurate range of the instrument. The iaeasurentent on the IU (Sta 42.8 IX) indicated an unsteady shock wave at 59.5 set, with the data at Sta 41.9 m indicating the shock approximately 3 sec. later as it moved aft. The presence of an unsteady shock wave at corresponding Mach numbers is also indicated by wind tunnel shadougraphs in the lower portion of Pigllre 18-4. Figure 18-3 also indicates a "range of data" (data scatter) at Sta 41.9 m. This data scatte; is also indicated in Figure 18-4 at Sta 42.8 m and corresponds to a sound pressure range of 147 to 153 db. The reason for the continuously fluctuating pressure level after the shock wave had passed the instrument location is unknown, and the fluctuations were more severe than on AS-201.

D&Z?

Speciffcntion
I -PWSUTE

Spectra
At Liftoff EXpWS5Cd As db/Az

7522 from l co IV

q
AS-202 Prediction S-IB Data

AS-202 AS-201

Data Data

Band

FIGURE

18-Z

VEi-IICLE

NOISE

ENVIRONMENT

AT LIFTOFF

I 24 I-.. I I IL

IU Unetesdy

Shock I----

147 to 153 db

S-IV8

Forward

Skirt

Unsteady

Shock ste. 42.9 m

60 Range

61 Time (xc)

62

63
0.978

64 1.009

65
1.034 r

0.890

0 2919
Nwzh Xumber

0.949

Shadowgraph

at F/lath

O.B5,

a=

OD

3hedowgraph

nt Mach 0.90,a,0a

FJXYJRE 18-4

CORRELATION OF THE AS-202 UNSTEADY WITH ,wIND TlJNNiCL SYSlwW GRAPHS

SHOCK WAVE

218 Figure 18-5 presents the fluctuating pressure coefficient f"CPrms) as a function of free-stream Mach number at Sta 41,9 m and 42.8 m for The ~~-20: unsteady shock wave spectra for the IU AS-202 and AS-201. ('sea 42.8 s> agrees very well with the AS-201 dara. AS-202 levels, after somer-;hat higher the occurrmce of the unsteady shock wave, indicated values than ~~-201. The agreement between fluctuating pressure coefficienes at Sta 41.9 m is considered good. ~ressurc spectra at Mach 1.0 for Sta 4?*9 m and 42.8 m are presented in Figure iS-6 (upper portion). The spectrum for Sta 42.8 m at Mach 1.0 indicates the envi,ronment was up to 9 db/Hz above the design specifications beLox 140 Hz. The AS-202 data at Sta 42.8 m is significantly higher than the AS-201 data. This condition also correlates with the OCprms data at Mach 1.0 in Figure 18-5. Since the spectra indicate an overspecification level at Mach 0.87 and Mach 1.0, respectively, there is a good possibility that this level is continuous from Mach 0.87 to about Mach 1.04, a time span of 5.5 seconds. Spectra for Sta 41.9 m at Mach I.0 are also presented. The agreement between the AS-202 and AS-201 data is considered very good. 18-6 (lower portion) presents the unsteady shock wave spectrum for AS-202. This spectrum is compared with AS-201 data and the acoustic design specification, and the agreement between the AS-202 and AS-201 spectra is very good. Both curves indicate fluctuating pressure levels above the design specification below about 200 Hz, with the AS-202 flight data being above the specification as much as 15 db/Hz. Significant parameters between AS-202 and AS-201 at the time of the unsteady shock are also listed.
nn the IU

Figure

The flight telemetry response was from 50 to 3,000 Hz, with signals attenuated at 200 Hz by 0.4 db and at 50 Hz by 4.C db. Hence, the overspecification levels at the lower frequencies may be somewhat greater than indicated by the flight data. spectra presented were obtained from a random vibration analysis (~4x7~~) program developed for use in conjunction with a digital computer. The spectra obtained from this program utilized a 10 Hz filter bandwidth and are presented in terms of hanned decibel (db/Hz). All data were corrected for sample length, utilizing the method developed by Harm; hence, Hanned decibel. The Iiann method obtains the spectrum from the Fourier transform of the auto-correlation function, All flight data were digitized at 8,000 samples per second. All sound pressure levels are referenced to 0.011002 N/cm2. Measurement accuracy was generally within lox of full scale.
All

219

Fluctuaclng CQefficient 0.06

Pressure a($?:, s

station

42,8 in

Fluctuating Coefficient 0.06 [

Pressure
ACpR,

Station I I

411.9 m

I Range Of Possible AS-202 Data

l-4Possible

0. 04

FIGUFZ 18-5

SHOCK PLUCTUhTIlG

PRESSURE COEFFICIENT

oara t
110

IO0

0.0 Frequencg (lair)

18.2.3

S-IB

STAGE I?ZEEUAL PRESSURES

The pressures measured in fuel tank F2 instrument compartment are compared with AS-201 data and predicted values in the upper portion of Figure 18-7. AS-202 data is in good agreement with uiie AS-201 data and the prediction. Pressures measured in the shear panel compartment are compared with predicted limits in Figure 18-7 (middle plot). The AS-202 data was generally within the predicted band except at altitudes of 3.0 to 9.5 iin>. pressures has been consistent on This region of h'gher than predicted all three S-IB fli,ahts. It should be noted that the AS-203 prediction Hwever, the indicated higher pressures than the AS-202 prediction. AS-203 flight data compares well with AS-201 and As-202 data. 18.2.4 S-IB STAGE BASE PRESSURE

Due to the inboard engine turbine exhaust change effected on AS-203, most of the Lhermal environments in this section are comparable only to AS-201 and Saturn I Block II data. However, some environments wre affected by the engine shroud removal and the resulting data must be compared with AS-203, which also had the shrouds removed. The measured loading on the heat shield is compared tzith predicted and previous S-IB flights in Figure 18-7 (lower plot). The peak positive (bursting) load was lower than AS-201, but well within the predicted limits. The negative (crushing) load on the heat shield xas greater than the AS-201 or AS-203 data and the prediction, but was well below the 1.24 N/cm2 (1.8 psi) design limit. The change in loading on the heat shield is attributed to the higher base pressures (aft side of heat shield) measured on AS-202 than on AS-201. pressures measured on the heat shield are compared with previous S-IB data and the Saturn I Block II data band in Figure 15-8 (left-hand side). Base pressures are presented as pressure coefficients and pressure differentials. Base pressures in the region between outboard engines 2 and 3 were sampled by two pressure transducers - a 13.8 N/cm2 (20 psi) absolute gauge and a 2.1 N/em2 (3 psi) absolute gauge. The two measurements agree uith each other to within 0.02 E/cm2 (0,03 psi}, In general, the AS-202 base pressures were higher than the AS-201 or Block II data. The engine shrouds t>ere removed on the AS-202 vehicle and may be the cause of the higher base pressures, especially in the subsonic :4ach number region. The pressure environment on the flame shield of AS-202 during S-IB stage flight is presented in Figure L8-8 (righ t hand side) along %ith predicted values and AS-201 data. AS-202 data were in good agreement with predicted and AS-201 data.

,,Iigq

,/--

224 18-2.5 S-IB/S-JVB IN'ERSTAGE EWIROiQIENT

i :

=w

226

227

9 i ,qa. i

35

/ I :i , f j _ ti

230

Fin side panel temperatures were influenced by both ae'rodynamic heating and radiation from the expanding H-l engine exhaust plumes. ~Analytical predictions were made for each of ,the four instrument locations utilizing both modes of heating,. ,The,aerpdynamic ~environment was obtained using fin flow properties ,a@ ,the ,&S-292 dperationa3,',trajectory,.~~, The radiation environment was obtained using analytical radiationiorm factors between the fin side panels'Bnd,rhe~H-l,engine e#iaust plumes. At. all four instrument locatipns,, :fin, LtherinocouRi,ea &ord& ,"l:, ,' temperatures slightly above those recorded~,on:~fln,,5,:',;These,'s~~e 're&lts were noted in AS-201 data and could possibly:'~,~ve,,beea:,:caused ,by'turb+, exhaust ,gases partially shiel.ding fin 5 frorn,,~sdiation,effect,s.:,::Data.~

~, ,,

:,~

The S-I~%-202 ,aerod,ynamic heating, rates &are 'similar to, those,,of':,, S-Itis-201, 'This wss a result of similarity betueon the trejectoriesand I the vehicle configurations. The struetural'temperature ri&esperienced on S-TV&202 r+as approximately, fhe'~same~as ,that of $-II?B-,~#$;,~ The r,lasimum structural xemperatures exper+xided,by th+f&&ard"ski~t skin and stringers 'are shcwn in Figure 18-13 (leftYhand's$de) a,long with S-IV%2QL temperatures and pastflight ~si~+ation; The structural ternperatus~ rise ~esalr$ag~ from aerodynamic heatin, * was within lOoK of that, siS-TV53-20'1~b3it 20K:le&,than on:S-IVR-203.' " ":" ,,

"

The renperature experienced by the BPS fairing forebody section in Figure LS-15 (right-hand side) shows that the increase resblting frm ,aerodgnamic heating was similar to that of S-IVB-~:!Ol., The tcmperatnrc increase {ias greater than on S-IVB-203,, vzhich ,had :'the ,,~tenii,,cratllrf sensor located near the expansion corner at the,'top,,,oi the forebody section, ,+here the sensor r~as subjected ,to less severe: heating l-cites khan the S-IVB-202 sensor, ' 18.3.3 S-IB STAGE 'BASE THERXAL EWIRO:iXEXT:': ,, ,,

',

,'

,',data fer the 'duration of S-IB stage p~~~,red','fliglit.,,~"?ara', from kr,;o 'ia& :temperature measurements located 'on the finl,,tr,jiling ,edse indicated
total calorimeter Egld a gas tC?EIF&tU~eprob&) ,a -1so ,failed to, yield ,140 ,seC of,,acc,eptable~::dar~'. xlbunti!d 66 ,t11e fLiii&~ shiel,d

','

:?,' ,~ : ~~:'

,' : ~'

Heat shield o,uter, regionradiation' hearing, rates, were,~-e<ordedby, ,two membrane-type cslorimeters ,located adjacent',to 'fins ',5 ,and,:7;,# 'As can ,, ', $e,,seen in ~i$re~lS-16, the' ou'ter r,eg:ion ~,radia'tio,n hea'ting 'fate oiI1S~EO2 ,,' fell within the band ,of corresppnding:,AS,-201 data,"'ta,,ai~,,aIi:ituci~~ of ,,, : ",,i approsimatelg 15 km. Above this alt,iti&j the AS;2$2:'radia'tion :he$ting, ,' ,, rates xer2 slightly higher, than those record(~dd,(n~A~-201,,,,,but continued ',I, ', ,:' to' Zolior3 the same trend ,- Figure 18-16 (center pl;t~j ,sh~$%khe :comnarison of :AS-202 andASheat shield oute'r region tot::' heatin:: rate's! The AS-202 data compared faxTorabl,y with,,those recordr, on AS-201; hOi.?C2VC~, alightly'lower heating rates'wre recorded on A~~202 during ~tho first 10 km of altitude. AB-202 heat ,shield outer region gas tcmnereture'data are'shown in Figure 1-8-lG (lo$er plot). These data followed the same basic ~attern'as,corres~ondin g data received from 85-201. F,e'iwecn the altitudes of, 5 and 10 km; the ,AS-2,02 he,at shield outer regio~n gas temperatures kere slightly lo~.?er,~than~,those from: AS-201, ro!xj.Lc at $ltitudes aboue 10 ~kithe temperatures, were :generally h',gher; ,,, - ------ 'in ".7, (upper ,pldt)~ ,presents 'the AS-2OP"heat r~lg;ure ,10-l shield region tots1 hez t,ting rates obtained from a membrane calor,imetcr near qgine ,7. 4The data agreed ,favdrably x.:i,th data recorded by measuiiment dn &S-201,, A cozzparisbn,of'AS-202 and AS-201 heat inner regi,on gas c&De ., ratqes is' shownin ,Figure 18-17 (middle These ti.20 data sjets followed the same trends and were cnnpafabliinnrr ,positionetl a' comparable s?xie?d plot),. in ;?agni-

Heat Shield
Hear WI FLIU

mner
(waces/c&

Region

Total

00

LO

20

30

40

Altitude

(km)

t
20

I
30

I
40

I
50

1 60

Alricude

(lm)

238 Three skin temperature thermocouples were flown on the forward side In the lower plot of Figure 1E 1-17, data from these of the heat shield, three thermocouples are compared with the water saturatil on temperature curve based on the ermine compartment pressur, e, Generally, the temperacures recorded by these thermocouples have indicate !d the presence of water on the forward side of the heat shield,, " The S-ID flame shield was instrumented with a totalcalorimeter, a gas temperature thermocouple, and,a skin tea+ erature Xhermocoupl,e. Data "btaincd from the total calorimeter are prese' nted intheupker plot of This measurrmcnt recorded usab le data 'unti,l an altitude Figure 18-18. of approximately 25 km. These data were eimilartc ~'those recorded on previous flights and are compared in the figu re', to',A,S,-~P,1~,data,., At' approxi_, '. mately 25 km the AS-202 data began$lo! ring :erra:~tlc 'jumps, ~r,eaching a maximum of &proximately 70 wattsj clnL at 30, km fallowed by,,a,decrease to 44, watts/cm2 at H-l engine cutoff., This ;,abrupt,change'in,,da,ta could not ., be supported by any other data from,thisor,p, retiious flights, and the data appear to be valid for only the first 80 set Iof ,,f,light. : shield was temperature gauge-w, as an iridium-i~idium/60%/ lium ~thelmoc 20llp 'le ti;a t was flown f"L the, first'time on AS-202. ,The 'OSC of the neri 1 type of ins itrument ,yaIs 'to~,ve,r,ify data ~r,ec"rded by 'a, 'similarly positioned platinum-platinum/lO%,,rh~ odium thermo,couple (which a 2,025'K Iaelt .inn-_ P" lint) . i nstalled on previous Dlo'ck,II~&nd Saturn " The iridium-rht Ii3 vchiL?s. >dii&n gaugk (with smelting point of ,2,73O"K)' recorded usable data until approsimatel~ 7 122 set (ap?roximately 29 km). AS-202 flame shield gas temperatur e data recorded priorto'l22,see were as expected, with a peak value of approximate ly 2,050'K'at 7.5 kmand, then a drop t" a relatively steady 2,OOD"K at 1p l"n. The,,compa,rison of these data with flock II and AS-201 data is shown i .;I Figure 18-18 (center, plot). As anticipated, the new iridium-rhodium gauIge,,indicated peak temperatures above the limit of the old type (of instrument, due in part LO chc higher radiation absorption of iridirm, At an altitude of 39,km, fbe AS-202 data dropped 450K to a temperature of 1.,550K. This instantaneous drap in temperature cannot be supports ed by previous'data or by any other AS-202 data, and very probably represents i a partial failure
oil the mrasurement.

The flame

Skin temperatures recorded on the forward'face of the ! flame shield arc shown in the lower portion o f Figure ~18-18. These data showed an almost constant temperature of'300'K. Corresponding data from previous Saturn ID flights were approximately 10K lower, The outboard H-l engine total heating rates were rc:corded by two mL?mb ranI? - t y pe calorimeters. one instrument mounted on an aspirator neck recorded da'ia that generally followed the S-IB band established by previous The initial heat ilux was higher than "u pre-cious flights, ilirht,s. .7 reachins 3 peak of 23 vatts/cn* at liftoff; but it immediately dropped

/ 10

I 20 Altitude

I 30 (km)

I 40

I 50

240

below the data band for altitudes below 10 km to a minimum of 10 watts/m?. Following a sharp rise that reached a peak of 20.5 watts/cm2 at 25 km, AS-202 data remained slightly higher than on previous S-IB vehicles. The second instrument was located on the aspirator body near the nozzle exit, and data recorded at this position were generally highe,r than previous S-I.13 data but followed the same basic trend,,reaching an inflight maximum of 72 watts/cm2 at 45 km, The corresponding S-1 Block II data band fell well belox the S-IB data, with no common values,. This may be ,due to,the slope-type ,calo,rimete,rs,&re used to fact that, on Block II vehicles, whereasthe more'irasponsive membrane measure H-l engine nozzle heat flux, calorimeter was employed on S-IB vehicles. These higher S-IB data are presently being used as a basis for revising existing H-1 engine environmental estimates. A total calorimeter was also located Ou the nozzle pfengine 5. The initial and final heat fluxes were'almost identical to, those recdrded,on AS-201; but the intermediate data, while following basically the, same ', pattern, were slightly higher than AS-201, data'at altitudes g&t&r tha! 15 km [reaching a maximum of 16.5 watts/cm2 at 23 km),,,and'slightly lower at lower altitudes (15 to 7 v.latts/&m2 belo$l&km) ,*, AS-202 data were generally comparable to AS-203 data, although AS-203 data'roacheo'a' peak of 22 watts/cm* at 27 ~QII, which'may be attrlbuted'to,~"the turbine, exhaust reroute. Radiation calorimeters were located on thetrailing edge of fin 5 at' radial St's L;-19,m and 5.99 m. With the excoptionof,an unusually ,low,' initial value recorded on AS-201, which probably ~.~as due'tofaulty instrument performance for the first 35 set of,,flight,,the,two sets of data are in good agreement. As expected, the radiant heating'at the inboard station <+as approximately half that recorded at the outbosrd station. both sets of data are shown in Figure 18-19 (upperleft-hand side). The trailing edge of fin 1 was instrumented and gas temperature thermocouples, with one of located at radial Sta 4.19 m and 5.91 m.' The mocouples yielded data that followd basically obtained from the AS-201 flight. (See Figure side.) Data recorded at the outboard station than Ehose recorded at Sta 4;19 m. with total calorimeters each instrument type tWo gas temperature therthe same patterns as data 18-19, upper right-hand ranged up to 235'~~ higher

The total calorimeters recorded the data shown in the lower lefthand side of Figure 18-19. These data were practically identical with data recorded at similar positions on AS-201, with the outboard location receiving approximately tr;ice the heat flux of the inboard location. Tw thermocouples were mounted on fin 7 at radial Sta 4.19 m and 5.99 ?a* The lower right-hand side of Figure 18-19 shows skin temperatures of the AS-202 fin trailing edge compared with corresponding AS-201 data.

241

242
Although gcncrally lower,

the AS-202 data

follow

the same basic

trend

as those

from AS-201,

The radiant heat flux incident on the trailing edge of fin 2 was recorded by a radiation calorimeter located at radial Sta'4.06 m. Figure 18-20 (upper plot) shows that, with the exception of a 'slightly higher initial value, AS-202 data are virtually coincidental with data from AS-203. This is essentially what wasexpected,, since both vehicles Data also indicate that, at altitudes were without engine shrouds. below 17.5 km, the trailing edge of fin 2 Jvas,exposed to more radiation than were the Block II stub fins. This indicates that theBlock II engine shrouds tended to block a portion of the~radiant energy from the " plumes, thus causing the shape factors to be sli.ghtly,lowe~~ on Block,11 vehicles. The shape factors for the two vehicle configurationswould,, tend to converge at higher altitudes (whe,ti theoutboard engine plumes expand beyond the shrouds on Block II vehicles);: accounting ,for the fact that AS-203 and~AS-202 data match theBlock II, data ataltitudes above, 17.5 km. Total heating rates and gas'temperatures'were also'recorded by instruments located on fin 2. Again the initial, values were slightly higher, but for the most part the data corresponded with AS:203 da'ta ,(Figure 18-20, center and lower plots). The only othernoticeable exceptions were sudden rises in the gas temperatures and total heating rites between the aititudes of 26 and 32 km,, This phenomenon may,be,due to the burning of fuel-rich exhaust gases in the,area of ,fin 2. ,That there is no corresponding rise in the radiation heat flux (see Figure 18-20 upper plot) is further verification that the sharp rise 'in,the gas temperatures was caused by local low temperature burning of gases. It will also be observed that the sharg rise and accompanying sudden drop in both gas temperature and total hea t flux on fin 2~ coincide with the mores pronounced and mare familiar rise (and drop) in heat shield gas temperatures and heating rates. However, the recorded peak in these fin data occurs during thr latter portion of the previously estabiished rise in heat shie1.d data. 15.3.4 S-IS% TIIERNAL EhVIROIWENT

The srructurai temperature rise at 145 set in the forward skirt _ (,Figure 1%13), LH2 tank (Figure 18-131, and aft skirt (Figure 18-,14) ~das the result r-i S-IB retra rocket exhaust gases impinging on the S-IVB stage. The temperature increases were similar to those of previous fli$lts. The heating rates to the aft interstage skin, resulting from retro are shown in Figure 1%i5 (bottom plot). rocket pLume impingement, The flight dara was influenced by mass injection into the plume gas flow stream 3ue to insulation ablation. The mass injection effectively reduces rlw measured heat flus, An assessment of the magnitude of heating rate rtrdnction, resultin% frcn mass injection, has not been made at this time.

Fin Trailing Edge Rqdiarion Heat Flux (watts/cm)

,- Block

II

Data Band

30 Altitude Fin Trailing Edge Total mYit Flux (wattdcm2) lb t (kn)

40

50

!I I

AS-203 Data r- Block II

I Data Band

-l~~~-~;:-i;
0 Fin Trailing Teaperacure 750 10 Edge Gas (OK) I ,-AS-203 Data 20 Altitude 30 (Ian) 40 50, 60

II

Data Band

The impingement of the S-IB retra rocket exhaust j:as anthe J-2~ engine bell during S-Is/S-11% separation resulted in m; aximum heating rates ranging from 4.2 to 7.3 vatts,'cm2, with the oxpec -ted heating rate being in the range of 6 to 11 watts/cm'. The thrust structure temneraturc'was simila r to S:IVB-201., The temperature at liftoif was 2lioK, with the ! ,maximum tempera,ture incrEase from S-IB retro rocket exhaust gas impinge !ment,heing ,13?,K:,at Star 29,:4 m. This 'temperature rise at this station was21'K on S-I'VB-~ZOl.,':" " 18.3.5 IKSTRlNNl WIT TEkiPERATURES ::,, ,,' ,, ,', ,,,A

The IU compartm,ent'and component,tempe~~tures,,remained'within their, 'normal operating range throughout 'fli_gh~,;,and:~,r\lere~:s,imilar,.tb~,, thosees~een~" ',,: ,~: on previous Saturn IB flights. Figure',,,,i8-21,,'(upper ,p,ldt),:,sh+: tha ,' : : ', internal ambient compartment gas,'temperatvre'and ,$kin t,empera:t,ures measured by 8 internally mo,unted thermo,couplfs;"'The' ambient, gas tempera,ture ~ ;, !+as 232.6?K at liftoff and reached a minimum,of 271:'5'K a't 'ap,pr,oxi@tely ,, ,:,', ,i seconds~ Seven of theskin temperature mrasurement,s rgent above,,their : .,' upper measuring range of 323.2'~ after ,125'se&nds, "The peak temperature, : was extrapolated to, be 33,7.2% at appr,oxima~t,~:,ly'~17O,,'~e,c,',~~at ~$hichtime,~ ," ,' the conveecive~heat,transfer rate approa,cbed'zGro. ~' The,,sensor,'located' ,nearest Pas IV dropped below the data ,band ,of,'the:.otheT"sensors at,about ,' ':, 40 &zc and never exceeded its upper limit; The p,$s,K t,@mpera,tuie re,&rded' " ~SC this position yas 319.3'K nt 1,75secon,ds. : ,At SPS ignition,,,the sensor ,, temperatures indicated a sudden rise 'of 'from' 1',too7'K.: The jmbient gas ~: ,, ,temperaturr rose above,the measuring rang,e ,of,,the:$ensor, at 61G.4'sec; ,,',:' ind~itiating a maxkum temperature in excess' ,af 319.3'K., ' : ,,' :, ,' :"',' ,,,, The center and lower plors of Figure 18-,21,alno',indicate sudden, ~ : component te.mpcrature rises ?f from 5 to 11% ior sens&rs,'located at'or near ,the component surfaces. proHowever, the temperature,,increases duced by SPS ignition did not exceed ,the specified,limits of any cpmponcnt ~ NEFIAL CONTRGL~SPSTEMS Telemetry da% Thermal Conditioning indicates satisfactory pe'rformance of both the System,(TCS) and th&Gas Bearing Supply System (GBSS);

rly

by holding pressures, flow rates, and Figzre 18-22 (upper plot) illustrates is the sublimator operation. The case approximately 1,7OK to a maximum ?nt decrease of about Z.&O'K was : of expanding compartment gases

320

--~---{---t---l--~-c-r-, ------ST-124 mcerrd GiL----Guidance Conpurer (Logic Page --------6uidance Cmputer (Hemoty) --------m-.--250 VA Inverrer -------Accelerometer Signal Cqndirio -_-.Control conlpucer

7 _---

,-

I I I

290

280 I
0

I loo 2w

I 330

I 400 e__-_

sI_^

I SW ,___

305

Adamer

~rthsnol/Uetet

Temperature

(%

294 ,

247 venting during ascent and to sublimator cooling, Aerodynamic skin hfating combined with component heatins then raised temperatures approximately allox+ing the subiimator tr stabilize l.l%, temperatures in the 2SS.15 + 0.56oK design range, The temperature increase a,fter 600 set was due toimpingement of hot gases in the open IU compartment during SPS ignition, The sublimasor line cooling rate shown in Figure 15-22 (center plot) was calculated using total coolant fl.o~ and the temperature differences berwen sublimator inlet and the methanol/water control temperature. This calculation also included thc~crformance of the Freflight heat '. exchanger, which decayed from 5.6 kw to 0 uithin,approxlmaeely 15 see after launch. At about 55 set, some cooling was visible,,building up to approximately 4.6 kw at 125 set and then decaye'd, to approximately I.,9 kt$ at 170 seconds. This sublimator cooling 3,efore the rja'ter valve opened at 160 set was unexpected. The sublimator WIS vented outside the 11.7'and possibly some moisture had condensed'inthe sublimator before launch+ The lower cooling rate after 125 set would indicate that a&1 condensed moisture had 3een consumed. .A11 subsequent v,ehicles r*,Cll have inboard sublimator vents and will have moisture-control,led enviranmencs before launch. This type of operation is not'expected'to recur, After the water valve opened at approximate&y 160 set, normal operation of the sublimator is indicated, which required a tiaximux of 4.5 lw of cooling to stabilize the methanol/water temperature in the 288.15 + 0156K design range. A maximum sublimatorrboling rate of approximattly 14 krg was indicated during impingement of the spacecraft engine exhaust gases. 18.4.2
GAS BEARING

SbiPLY SYSTEM (GBSS)

The Gas Bearing Supply System functioned properly, holding pressures in the proper ranges. Figure 18-22 (lower plot} illustrates the temperature performance of the gas bearing supply system. The G;\'2 at the gas bearing heat exchanger exit ~;ias maintained within 0.8'~ of the methanol/ water inlet temperature from launch until spacecraft engine ignition, at which time the GK2 inlet temperature fell. below the design minimum by approximately 1.1%. A relocation of the gas bearing heat exchanger on AS-203 indicated that GE2 inle t temperatures to the ST-124M3 could be held iCthin 4.4% of,the methanol/water temperature compared to the 6.1~oK observed on 85-202. A11 subsequent flights <gill incorporate this gas bearing heat exchanger relocation,

248 19.0 AEROiXNAKICS ,lYJ SLWIARY ~, ', .

Differential pressures measured acros,s 'the: fin exter~idt-'surfa,ces~,, : " and the corresponding wind tunnel data, were&fair tigreeinent., The base,drag coefficient, determined from pressures:mfasured~i,n' the',base *e$an'and the axial force coefficient,,were ~lbwer,'than~predicted throughout ~ S-IB'stagc flight. The axial ,:orce ,coeE~icient'compured ,f,ro&flighr ,;', s,imulation was alsc lower than predicted th,~o,ughbut~,S-I3:',stage,,::'light. ',' ', ,, ,,, ," ~, ~' l9.2 FIN SURFACE PRESSURES ,~ Differential pressures; measured across ~h'e: exterior 'Xirface' ,of~~fins ~~~, 5 and 7, are compared with wind tunnel data',,,in:'FFgures:,1:Y-l,,and lY-2,,; ': ,respcctively. iaind tunnel data~ shown ontheke piots,,'c'~rrespoild,:to,;:thg y ', flight (Q-ball) angle-of-attack hist,ory. Bue,~;to&l,oSs, of %I$ ,data,,:,' ,,,; ", : ', flight data is not shown' for Mach numbers be:tqen, 2;~4"and, 3.0." ',In: "" ,' ,,gencral, the flight data was in good agree&n't .r+i,,th tlie~~.windtunne'l data,.,: ,' The fin 5 measurements indLcated ,gene,r,ally'better,':agreement,,with,:th,e wind", ,: ,tunncl, data than did, the ,jncasuremcnts',ou, f,in7,',The ,ma,J?r::,~ar,iation:,between :, fli.&t and wind tunnel data occurred,b,etween,,Ma~h,:numberS, 1.2 and;'IZ.Ci,', ,,~,I', ',: where there is the least confidence inthe,,<qlnd tunnel da&,, ,: ,',' ,,,, 19.3 DRAG 'The base dras coefficient, ,determine,d fro~"measured ,b&e:$re'ssures; ,:,,, ', ',' is compared with predicted taiue's in the, upper portion, ofFigure 19-,3; 1' : ,'I Flight data indicated an'average ,of2,558~:~,(5,751,,16,f):,lower,than'prediCted ~, base drag throughout S-IB s,tage 'flight tGth,'a ma$mum deviation, of,,:,,:, : 95,637H (Z1,5UO,lbf) occurring at Mach 1.0. ~ AfterMach 1.4; ,the base " drag became negative; i.e-,, acted in the thrust direction. Base~pressures, wcw d+tcrmined by three pressure measurement? in the base, region. Of, " the three measurements, two were 'in the same ldcation on,,the heat shield and the other was located on the, flame shield. The heat shield measurements wrc mad= by coo transducer+ on&having a 13~8 N/c,2 (20 psi)'rshge and the othi-r having,a 2-l N/cm' ,(3 psi} range. The base ,drag,coefficienk was calculated usingthetwo heart shield pressure ,mejsurements separately, as shown by the measured curve after Mach 3,O'(upper portion of Figure . l,Y-3). ,This difference in the dra g coefficient represents,a,maximum pr&?ssurc difference of 0.,02 N/cm? (0.03,psi). The upper curve, 'derived using pressures from the 2.1 ~/cm2 (3 psi} transducers, is considered to ;c th? b,cst indicstrion of the actual base drag.

Metlsured ---Predicted (Wind Tunnel Dare)

E.fferential 0.2 Pressure Ccefficient, AGF

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

U%ehtZumber

3.0

3.5,

L.0

Differential
0.2

Pressure

Coefficient,

ACp

250

----Pr.dict.d

(Hind Tunnel Dace)

I 0.s

I 1.0

I 1.5

I 2.0 llach bm+r

,I

2.5

0'

0.2

---Prediccrd Base Drsp Caefiicient 0.3 (Cob) Measured

0.6

0.4

0.2

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-02

T -

252 The axial force coefficient is shown in Figure 19-3. Included in this curve are the post-flight reconstructed coefficient aerived base pressures, and the coefficient obtained The reconstructed and simulated coefficient throughout the flight, with the exception of curves were lower than predicted throughout the lower portion of predicted coefficient, the from analysis of telemetered through flight simulation. curves exhibit ,good correlation the max Q region; both flight.'

Aerodynamic forces acting upon the base of t&vehicle in the,low dynamic pressure region after liftoff up to Makh'O;Z, are predicted by adding an exponential function of the flight Mach ,number to the Qdependent drag coefficient. Analysis of the telemetered base ,pressure measurements during this time indicareslower than expected drag for both AS-202 and AS-203 vehicles. Further inGest,ig+tion of the method " of prediction is being conducted to determine,its adequacy.

253 20.0 20.1 SUI4MAR.Y active INSTRb>lENTATION

At AS-202 liftoff, there were 1242 telemetered measurements on the launch vehicle. Of this total, 5 failed in fligl an overall measuring system reliability,of'99;6%. The airborne telemetry systems, including"ea1 recorder operation, performed satisfactorily escep data (0.76 set) on link GF-1. Performance of the RF systems, includin; factory, The only problems were lower than ] signal levels received by the Cape stations, polarization fluctuations in the C-Band rads: Overall camera coverage was not satisfa' cameras (68 fixed, 14 tracking, and 2 onboard);' malfunction. The remaining 58% had a,cceprab: Both onboard cameras viewing'the S-IB/S. were ejected successfully; howevser, ,camer,a' as on the previous two flights. 20.2 VEKCCLE MEASURING ANALYSIS

At AS-202 liftoff, there were 506 telemetered on the S-IB stage, 435 active on the S-IVB stage, Instrument Unit. Of these 1242 measurements, 5 fa ing in an overall measurin, p system reliability of 99.G%, Twelve measurements were scrubbed prior to the automatic countdown sequence, 1G were partially successful, 23 had insufficient measuring range, and 3 measureThe,data lost due to the failures ments required special data processing. and other measurement malfunctions had no adverse effect on the vehicle evaluation. postflight A summary of the measurement malfunctions is presented in Table 20-I. 20.2.1 S-IB STAGE J!&VUJRING ANALYSIS

Five hundred and eight flight measurements were scheduled for the Of these, 2 measurements were scrubbed prior to the automatic S-IB stage. countdown, 4 failed completely, 9 were partially successful, 1 had insufficient range, and 3 required special data processing. Based upon 4 failures out of 506 measurements expected to produce useful data, the resulting reliability was 39.2%.

256 Measurement A7-12 (Acceleration, Longitudinal)indic; ated maximum negative output at about 144 set for approximately, 10 set including the period of retro rocket firing. This performance ! was anticipated, since the range of the measuring system was ,Bnovn tc 1 be,inadequate to The range ,'bas,,been ,increased, to; measure the acceleration at this time. two g's for subsequent stages. The schedule ,fo;:s-I8-2'did,,not permit, the incorporation of this, change, ,:,' The S-IVB instrumentation system,performed,,satisfactorily',,during :' " flight. Of 472 measurements listed in, the ,Ins~tr~-ntatiqn~Program~and ,: ,, 6 measurements were not 'wholly onthe S'~I'VE :titagd and ,' Components List, 19 measurements were used for checkovt ,~only~.,~~ .~iT~~,o::measur~~ents~~-were~~:,no,t, ~' ~', ':,%:~ used because of ,changes ,in stage configuration; ,pl,additidn, 10 measure,ments became inoperativeor malfunctioned,prior ,to ,the&tart'bf1tho ,,automatic countdown sequence :and were therefqre ,scrubbe'd.-,,'Nb~measure',', merits were lost due to noise from, unknottin sour'&s.,, ',,',,, : " ,,' The total number of measurernents"that~'r~ere,to"be:,evaluated fromthe ,, ,beginning of the automatic countdo& sequence' tllr~ug~,~~the,~,end of ,:the' :~,,' missian was 435. Of these measurements,,, onefailed ,and'<seyen were; "_" 'partially su,ccessful., Based upon 1 failureeoutof ,'435,measurements',, ,', ,:' ,' expected to produce useful'data, the measuring system reliab'ility ,ria's,~" : :,, ', ', 99.8%. ,,, ,, ,, 2012.3 IU~E%ASURING ANALYSIS ," ,,, Of th& 301 inflight measurements flown, onthe 'IU,:1there' &'re :&,~,,:I "' measurement failures; nor were any,only partialIy,successful. However, :, 22 mcasuremencs went off-scale during a portionof'the f,light, indic,ating ,, 3 need for ,rescalitl.E. The outputs from t\!o,measurements, ,VD,l-900 and VD3-9CKl (EDS-Delta P Pit ch anJ Yaic, Q-Ball), igere interrupted after an ', apparent power short in the Q-ball circuit at,93 seconds., The measuring, reliabi.liry of the IU was 100X. " 20.2.2 S-IKE MEXXJRING ANALYSIS

Thirteen airborne telemerry links were u,sed on the,AS-202 launch vehicle to ~trznsmit flight data'to ground stations. The systems utilized arc presented in Table ,2O-II.

the only discrepancy noted in thc,performance of,the four S-IB stage telc:wtry s~stcms was a brief loss of data on the C-F-1 link. Otherwise, tltc opiirotion of the telemztry links aboard S-ID-2 was satisfactory. Telwetr~preflight and inflight calibrations vere'sequenced as programmed 3ad txrc successfully aciomplished.

TABLE 20-II AS-202 I.AUNCii VEHLC! Link GF-1 GF-2 GS-1 GP-1 CF-1
GF-2 CF-3

Modulation
P~i~fl~

PAM/FM/FM ss/Iw PCM/FM

m%M

FNmf

ca-i CT-1 DF-1

w-2

DP-1 m-1

258 nt 64.4 SfC, all data on the S-II3 stage GFl link was lost for a -2 period of 0.76 seconds. This loss was alscrecorde d by the airborne tape recorder but was not indicated on the PCM data 3 which sampled four times per set (link GP-1). This would indicate __ thn -..it,',an,'intermittent condition occurred in either the GF-1 in ternal po+r'supply, the ,mixer amplifier, or the wiring between the mixer amrllifieroutput :and, the tape ,,,, recorder input. Data received from Tel 2 and CIF'indicjted,thar:,several,,,drdpouts ,,, occurred on the S-IB stage GP-1 link from approximately ,93,,se,&tol02 ' seconds _ However, tapes from Grand Bah&lna Island-(GDI),,indicated no ,Loss of date during this period. These dropouts could have be'eti'caused, by transmission difficulties or by problems 'Common td'~IF,andTel,2 ~", ,' ,data retrieval. There were no problems ,iii the,'operstionof, the~GP~1, " " link airborne equipment. 20.3.2 S-IW STAGE

Transmission of data from all five S-IVl:telemetry'links was'satis-, factory throughout flight except for'a ,2.5, sec,,blackout,period atstage," ', separation (approximately 144 seconds); At ~this,~tirnc;~,-data, ~t,ransmission : :,' from all links was lost~ due to flame,&ttenuatfon. '?Thedata:,dur,ing ,the 2.5 set period of transmission loss,,, from Links :&'-l 2 :CF-,2,' and ,dF-3; ': ," rgere recorded and played,back by the S-I'VB tapeiesorder:,, Otherwise,, all,transmitters, multipltixers,, and stage barrie,r,"osc'iilatorsi'were operational until S-IvB flight termination;, ', ;' ~ Calibration of subcarrier oscillators and:thesingle sideband'(SSD) " sy:,tem in the S-Im stage was satisfactorily conducted,t,hree':times 'during flight and once on the ground. Each ground calibration, step (al'1 channels) was approximately I.5 set- . to allow an adequate sample for data~reduction,, Flight calibration consisted of reg ular and special calibration, 20.3-3 INSTRUMENT UNIT ',,

Performance of the four telemetry Links il n the ID tias satisfactory. Approximately ;Iwo set of data dropo ut ,ocdurred'at,retro rocket firing (approximately 144~sec) due to',gFa ttenuation of,abdut -40 'db. Data "' ,, dropout at CIF on links DF-1 and DF-Z~also'oc&&red,at about lOQ,seconds., IIowever, this dropoui was resolved to be a grpund station problem since', the dropout was not present on data from, Tel 2 ,or GM. Preflight and inflight calibrations were satisfactorv. ,Data smoli-.L tudes as high as 200X of, full scale calibration range were observed on link DS-1. These high amplitude signals seen on the data output from Link DS-1 can be attributeJ to inputs to the 'SSE/FN package being greater than the system limits. The output signals of the measuring racks are clipped by the AC amplifier at a nominal 6.8 volts. This clipped signal

259 is applied to the SSB/FN system, resulting mitted. This condition has been simuLated in unusable data being in the labor; 3torv. trans-

Gimbal ST-12411) yielded measurement E3-603 @it :. Z Axis Inertial a low respon,se ~to the Remote Automatic @lib: ra,ta System (RACS). Vibration thatvibration ,amplitude accuracy was degraded because it i: s not certain During flight, data and MCS calibration signal l!ere simila: a?, affecteo. this measurement exceeded full scale at 6 se, zonds ,' Temperature measurgnents of the DF-2,'RP to~lemctry components inthe Vibration (S-e paragra ph lC.3.5;) IU were igel within design criteria. th,e design criteria data from the same nanel indicated levels: we:Ll within but higher,,than S-IU-~~l3,ievdls.,,'Ma~imum: and lower than S-IU-201 levels, vibration levels in the longitudinal x&perpendicular dirrcti&is were,', 1.75 g's and 2.7 g's, respectively. ,, 20.4 AIRRORXE T4PE RECORDERS

,, ,'

The airborne tape recorders record and store;, forsub&eq,nent, trans-,' 'mission, portions of data that would otherriise be lost 'due,'to, rerro,',',', transmission, blackout, ore, distance from reoeiving bfitions.~ rocket firing,, ,The S-IB stage tape'recorder suecess;fully,recdrded,GF-I and GF-2" The tape recorder on-cor$mand~occurre$~t'39.9~sec ',,' telfme'ter dutputs. ani! the off,-command at about 1 set prior 'to the: start o'f pl~rba,cl~-':,Playback of the,recorded information,began,a't ,171,~45,seconas.',Esamrnation: ,,"' of the playback information indicated excellent reprodu,ctian of theinput signals. The S-IVR tape recorder recorded da'ta from links CF-1, CP-2; and G-3, and later piayed it- beIck, thus preventing data loss during,the corded data from 138.5 set to ,' blackout period. ,The tape recorder Ee at Recorder c playback was started 165.5 set, a total of 27.3 seconds. Satisfactory, data was 627 set and was completed at 665.1 ?. seconds. obtained. aud re,cprded the The S-Ill-202 raw recorder operate d satisfactorily nouul,&tion of.lfnks DF-land DF-2 during S-IBIS-IVB stal;ing., The, tape recorder started to record at 1137.7 set and stopped recording at 164.3 retransmitted over thi same,links,folseconds - The recorded da&was lowing S-IX03 stage cutoff, 'Playback,begen at 526.g c:?:: and stopped at from the 656.S~seconds. +x3-e we~+E !S 4 set of usable data o:l;ained ,= Real time data coverage was cantinued following the enterplayback. ' rup,tion for tape recorder playback.

260

20.5

RF SPSTrn Ab%LYSIS

The EE systems performed satisfactorily duriq ; the flight of AS-202 dower than pre'dieted ,E with only minor exceptions. ;ignallevel,s received by the ~n;lc Stations between 70 and 110 set f rom telemetry, andODC!P Multipatn .,, ano1 cross-pus.-"arization systems wre unexplained. fluctuations ,, account for C-Band Radar degradationduring t,he ea:rly portion ,of 'flight. h'o discontinuities in data resulted~'from thes,e ,redl ude< signal~lovels. GLOTISAC performance was excellent during the:early 'portio,n, ,of: flight, ,' ,', with a smooth transition to the Grand Turk Station for,interroga,tion.,, 'Approximately 35 set of tracking data were loSt,,:bettioen:'423 and,458,sec, du& to an unexplained signal dropout,occurring on both, the::onboard,d reliever and the ground receiving statiqns.:'AS-202,RF",system:,coverage is: 'I :' ,, shown in Figure 20-l. 20.5.1 TELEXETRY

Ueep nulls appeared 'in the telemetry, signa~:"stre'ngth,~befween 55, and: 105 see on all Tel 2,records. This does not ap,pe,jr to'be ,,flame 'attenua',' tion, since there was no evidence,of noisemodulation; CIF' te,lemetry ,, ,' records also reflect a deep null of,approximately,'23~ db; ,increasingto ,' 40 db from, about 75 to 110 seconds; L As' on the,Tel 2, records ,, this does '~npt appear to 'be due to flame attenuation:':Examination of,antenna,, ~:,' patterns during this time period failss@revea'l any Sharp,antenns pattern llUllS ~ The signal levels at Tel 2 'didnot drpp"below -,6O,dbm during-this This is considered to be a good ,levelof signtil,:s,trength.: At CIF, ,,' time. the null resulted in'reducing Signal s'trength:to'the,receiver threshold level at 105 seconds., This problem h&not beenexplained., ,Loo,k,angles for the enti-ie period of reduc,ed signal, strength are vkry ~near the tail "' ' of the vehicle, where the antenna patternsare least clearly defined. A drop of 6 to 8 db appears on all IU li nks beginning immediately, after retro rocket firing and lasting until 1 65 seconds. There is a corresponding increase in the reflected power measurements for the iU a partial breakdown' telemetry links during this time. This indicates : to affect of the onboard antenna system. Attenuation was not sufficient data quality, since the signal levels were greater than -55 dbm dur ing this time. to that of AS-201. The This indication was vcrry similar sharp return to norinal at 165 set is indicative that deionization of either the antenna or multicoupler occur cred. Attenuation of the S-IVB and IU telemetry links due to retro rocl cet firing was about 40 db and One link was attenuated-SC Idb atCapeTel2. lasted about 2 seconds. Severe noise modulation of the apparent at both Tel 2 and CIF from This noise was absent from signals A similar effect has been noted on IU and S-IVB telemetry signal was about 220 set until 280 seconds. received at Grand Bahama Island (GBI). previous flights and is believed to

262

There was result from the vehicle entt:ring the ionosph&ric layer. another drop in signal. srrcngth on the IU and's-IVR -,linIcs indicated relieved to the Cape staria~ns between 599 and 601 seconds. This is 1: caused by panel deployment. GBT telemetry first ac,quired a Signal greater about 50 seconds. The signal strength was v&y smo'o&and -60 dbm until 575 sac, and above -75 ,dbti,utitil 620,,secokd!s; :,Atitigu+ drop'ef acquired a signal at about 410 second&. There I wtis:&sba?$ at 618 set, and a 13 db drop at: 625,sec on Izr Ik cF-3'(&the,S-IVB These drops were probably due to antenna

by be at than ', 8 db ', stage).

The Cape television statiqn reeeived,~gaed_~,quality,,,piCture ,tiigbais ::I' ~;;$iCf+yA: ,q{akity"$&+&e ,poo< ',~ ,:: from liftoff &nril after panel deployment. and the frame lock was intermittent :aft@r ti@,tiut,,,6,$5'sec,:,due ,,tb,,lo@ e'leva-', tion angle. Th& low angle caused signal,rnulripath,,;'and'$&nal Signal, attenuation resulted from the increased Yang?,:, There,,,wa,&, sufficienti,"' ', overlap,in the cbver+ge'between the,,Cape ~sra,tio,~~an,d~:Antigua to',@rov&de ,:,,', redundant coverage during panel ,deployment.~,:'~Antigua,':B'cquired--?,::sig,naI ,,' ,, at 411 set, &id adequate signal &plitude ,xgas:,ac&$r'ed for,:gobd:~pidture,s Loss og signal by Antigua and,:I+se Kriot Victior;ti?$ tib,rupt"' : at 442 seconds. at 94L.2 seconds., :This 'time agrees with loss 'of' telemetry,,signaY@ from the I~and S-IVB links at terminatidn :oS',thP,com&un 'l$ch+ad, tiest,~(S-I~/:'~,: ,,' ,, ,, ,, IU breakup); 20.5.3 TRACKING ,',, ,, ,~

GMTRAC coverage was good duri .ng 'the' launch phase of,'fi,ight (i@wer, ':, portior: of Figure 20-l). The Mark II station at ,the Cape,'track&d the, vehicle from laun& to 2 !35'sec in the actirie mpde.,,',Gran&Turk began ", ,' interrogating at 238 seconds. ,Atlantic Field; Bermuda, ,Eleuthera; Mark ,"' and Grand Turk startei 1 to recei@'~&fter launch and reC&ived II, Jupiter, good signal strength until 423 set, at which rime the, onboard,Automatic Gain Control (AGc) data ,showe d an abrupt drop 'of input signal., The' signal drop lasted until 458 set 'and,caused; loss ,of,lock. The cause of the abrupr signal drop has nor been detetiinecl;' however, the',G?and',,' Turk GLOTRAC Station function records have not been'received. ThaIGrand, Turk GLUTRAC operator's log s imply states that the signal dropped out suddenly and was reacquired just ai ; abruptlyThe Atlantic Field receiver was phase locked from 475 to 585 SE !C; Bermuda,, from 463 to 806sec; Xark II, from 465 to 530 set; and Jupiti er, from 458 to 534 and,624 to 708 seconds. With the exception of the 1 $23 td 458 set interruption, good metric data should have been 1 received.

263 C-Band radar function .records :from only two stations have been reviewed, the FPS-16 radar records from the Cape and GBI. The Cape radar records indicate that the signal level was 70 db above threshold at liftoff. Signal level continued to be very good until 67 sac, when it dropped from 70 tc- 25 db above threshold 6 set later. The signal returned to nominal ievel at 74 seconds. Another drop of approximately 27 db occ urred from HS to 91 seconds. A switch to skin track occurred at 98 seconds. The :;ignal varied during skin track and the tracking mode was returned to beacon at 123.7 seconds. At 124 set, the signal level returned to 55 db above threshold and was smooth. Subsequently, the signal gradually decreased as the range increased and the transmitter was turned off at 210 seconds. Signal level at cutoff was 40 db above receiver threshold. Drops in signal le~vel during tracking were,probably due to polarization difficulties. The AS-202 vehicle antenna was the linearly polarized model 708, which e;irects most of its energy toward the tail of the vehicle. On .subseq~Jent Saturn vehicles, this antenna has been replaced with a crossed slot antenna having circular palarization and a much larger beam dispersion. GBI radar records indicate that acquisition of signal occurred at 84 seconds, The signal level gradually increased until 2.58 sfc, when the signal strength ,peaked at 42'db above threshold. Fluctuations in the GBI signal level between 277 and 311 set were probably caused by cross polarization between the vehicle antenna -nd the ground, tracking antenna. Final loss of signal at GBI occurred at 610 seconds. Since radar function records have been received and analyzed from only two tracking stations, analysis of the system performanceis ,limi:ed. Analysis of existing data indicates the C-Band radar system performance was good. The ODOP tracking system operated nominally, providing position information from launch rhrough 348 set with a minimum of three-station coverage, A severe <antenna pattern null reduced the tracking effectiveness from Margo between 94 and 104 seconds. Good quality signals were received by the other ODOP stations during this period, providing con tinuous position information, Signals became intermittent at all stations after 270 set as a result of low elevation angles, This was during the debris phase of the S-IB stage flight; data was however, sufficient obtained for position determination, 20.6 20.6.1 OPTICAL INSTRLlNEWTATION GROUND CAMERAS

Overall camera coverage was not satisfactory. About 36% of %he camera films scheduled to be used were of poor quality. There were 84 cameras scheduled to cover the AS-202 launch: 68 fixed, 14 tracking, and 2 onboard cameras. Twenty-two of these 84 cameras had no time-toframe reference; this reference is desirable but not essential for

264 Of the 84 cameras, 4 malfunctioned by jamming, 18 had film evaluation. no range timing, 4 were oriented incorrectly, 8 had incorrect exposure, and 1 onboard camera was lost. Camera coverage reliability was 58.3%, based on 49 effective cameras out of 84 scheduled. At the time of engine ignition, one of the stub,fins vibrated This vibration was noted on the film st lowing the release excessively. This movement occurred durin:: engine,thrust of the holddown arms. buildup
OIllY.

20.6.2

ONBOARD CAMERAS

Both onboard cameras, located on top of tht S-IB/S-IVB stage separation and to track'the S-l successfully (Figure 20-2). However, ,only one '( its film was of good (camera 2) was recovered; recovered camera showed that the ret?-0 rocket bt started to tail off before the other three retry The camera recovery aircraft reported recej at T 'r 13 min and spotting the dye marker at T < frequency varied from 238 to 243 mHz and w from both camera beacons. However, when, the can (T + 71 min), all signals disappeared. Only one What appeared to be the booster impact point wai cf the recovered camera. A study ~,as made to determine whether loss oft csImel'a 1 (fin ,2) on, three consecutive Saturn IB flights could be attributed to ) collision with the vehicles, either the S-IB/S-IVB interstage i It ejection or the booster during reentry. The recovery of the flotation gear with the unopened parachute eliminated the possibility that a camera collision occurred on AS-201. No data wac received for study on AS-203; therefore, only AS-202 is considered. To determine the likelihood of camera collithe loci of the cameras from ejection sion with the S-IB/S-IVB interstage, until the time they should have clearsed the interstage (1.1 set after ejection) was plotted (Figure 20-2j. The angular rates of the separated S-IB-2/Interstage at the time of camera ejection was 1 deg/s in pitch, -9.5 deg/s in yaw, and 8 deg/s in roll. The study indicates that the conditions necessary to produce camera 1 collision with the interstage would be: (1) S-ZB-Z/Interstage angular rates of approximately -30 deg/s in pitch and -40 deg/s in yaw, or a combination of approximately -20 deg/s in pitch and approximately -15 deg/s in yaw; (2) a misalignment of the camera ejection tube by approximately 20 deg or, using AS-202 angular rates, a misalignment of approximately 18 deg with a 40% reduction in ejection velocity. From the concluded that loss of.camera due to collision study, it can be reasonably with the interstage was highly improbable.

Note:

Dashed arrous represent Loci of cameras 1.1 set after ejection when the cameras have cleared the interstage (body fixed, reference).

205

Angular

Rates

h
&E

sea

24.44

SEAL
PLATE

FIGURZ

20-2

CAMERA

EJECTION

SYSTEM

266

S-1%2/S-~&-203 stage separation conditions were also used to calculate trajectory and impact conditions in order to determine the possibility of camera collision r+ith the booster during reentry, The resulting calculated separation distances between the camera and booster at impact were within th<a previously observed error bands. However, since the separation distance and camera/booster orientations were not stated in the recovery report, the result of the study is inconclusive.

267

21.0 SPACECRAFT 21.1 SlM%4RY using Apollo Spacecraft

Mission AS-202 was succesfully accomplished 011 and the Saturn IB launch vehicle.

Apollo spacecraft 011 was essentially a Block I type configuration, consisting of a spacecraft lunar module adapter, a service module, a The major differences command module, and a launch escape subsystem, the omission betxzen spacecraft 011 and the Block I configurntion were: and cabin postlanding ventilation;',and the of couches, cre'iv equipment, addition of three auxiliary batteries, mission control,programnier, four cameras, and flight qualification instrumentation. The spacecraft struc.ture performed and throughout the rest of the mission, structural loadings occurring. 21,2 SPACECRWT PEEFOENANGE as required during the launch with no adverse vibrations or

the guidance and c,ontrol subsystem Following spacecraft separation, oriented the spacecraft for the first service propulsion subsystem burn, Upon at,tainment of the proper which zas initiated at 609.7 seconds. the first burn was terminated at 825.6 seconds, velocity increment, the spacecraft was reoriented with the command Following engine cutoff, module apex toward the earth (local vertical) and was maintained in this During this coast period, attitude for approximately 2,000 seconds. an apogee of 1,liiZ.o km (617 nautical miles) was attained at 2474 seconds. the spacecraft was oriented for the the coast period, as planned, second service propulsion subsystem burn, which was initiated Upon achievement of the proper trajectory conditions, the second burn and navigation subsystem at 404'1.5 was terminated by the widance 0 Two additional burns of 3 set duration, initiated at 4054.5 seconds. sea and 4067,5 set, were accomplished as planned.
Following

The environmental control subsystem, as installed in spacecraft 011, performed satisfactorily with the exception of the glycol evaporator. The evaporator did not function from 840 set tc &OS0 see, thereby allowing the outlet temperature to exceed 297% (75oF). Trio electrical power subsystem performed satisfactorily the mission with the exception that the condenser exhaust the fuel cells approached maximum limits. throughout temperature on

Orientation of the spacecraft for command module/service module separation was Lnitiaicd ai 41SS.2 set and separation occurred at 4264.0 SWOIldS, Although no physical separation monitor signal was received by ground stations, separation occurred satisfactorily, the command module was oriented to the entry Following separation, attitude. Reentry was initiated with a space-fixed velocity of 8,690 m/s (28,512 Et/s) at 4348.0 seconds. Spacecraft coammications blackout began at 4416.0 set and lasted until 5005.0 seconds, During reentry, spacecl-aft attitude was controlled, to provide,a skip trajectory resulting in a double-peak h,eating-rate ,history. The command module was subjEcted to the desired thsrmal profile of'an initial maximum he$ting rate of 94 watt/cm' (83 Btu/ft--s),foll,or~ed by copling' to 22 watt/cm(19 Btu/ft*-s), and a second peak of 49,watt4cm2, (43 stu/ft2-s),. The rc$ntry heat load was approximately 22,698 watt-'s/cm 120,000 Btu/ft-) as planned. The command module structure and heat ,shields adequately performed in the reentry environmetit with no adverse effects. Apex deployment upright in preflight aids cover jettison, drogue parachute deployment, and main parachute The cc~mmandmodule landed undamaged, occurred as planned. the stable I attitude at ,582.Z SEC, 7.5 set ,later than the predicti&. were disconnected, and the recovery

the main parachutes Upon landing, deployed and operated satisfactorily.

The point of splashdordn was 16' 07' hr latitude and 168' 54' E longitude, approximately370.4 km (200 nautical miles) uprange southwest of the recovery ship, due to lower spacecraft lift-to-drag ratio and The spacecraft was steeper reentry flight path angle than predicted. sitxhted at 2:25 PN EST by recovery aircraft. The spacecraft was aboard thz recovery ship at 10~17 PN EST (10 hours 2 minutes after liftoff). Pastflight tests were conducted for the evalustion performance and for the resolution of mission anomalies. of the subsystem

Spacecraft anomalies which occurred during the flight had no adverse The mission AS-202 spacecraft *ffcct upon completion of the mission. ohjectiw>s for the environmental control subsystem, electrical power subsvst-m, and unified S-Band communications cubsystem were partially satisfied; ar:d all other spacecraft test objectives were fully satisfied.

Evaluation of the launch x;ehicle perfornance,,during the AS-2 flight test, did not reveal aq mal*runc,tions or dryiatians, w$ich c be considered a serious system failure for this flight, Hox+~~er;' minor modifications are planned for future flights to impmve syst operations.

The systems having malfunctions (abnamal operation) or signi from espected,aperation), ti deviations (acv~al operation deviated nature nf the malfunction or deviation, and the recbmmended~correc are summarized in Table 22-T.. A mcke complete discus,sion action, each problem area is included in the paragraphs pf this r,qxrt &a referenced.

,Zicant ,e prob,able tiue of t are

TAELE

22-I

SWRY

OF 'MALLBUNCTfONS AND DEVIATIONS

@ONC)

IkViBtiOnB

Recommended

tion

near liner.

action

will

be can-

272

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION

The flight of AS-202 was the third to qualify and to flight test It was the second ffight to demonstrate the rhc Saturn IB vehicle. Apollo Spacecraft and SaWrn IB launch vehicle physical and flight compatibility. AS-202 measured approximately 68 ~(223 ft) in length and consisted of the following four major units: S-IB Stage, S-WE Stage, A pictorial description of the vehicle Instrument Unit, and Payload. is presented in Figure A-l, A.2 A.2,1 S-IB STAGE

S-13 GO?JFIGDRATION

The S-IB stage had nominal dimensions of 24.5 m (80.3 it) in length A cluster of eight uprated H-l engines and 6.5 m (21.4 ft) in diameter. powered the S-IB stage (Figure A-2) and produced a total sea level thrust of 7.12 million Newtons (1.6 million lbf). Each of,,the four outboard engines gimballed in a + 8 deg square pattern to provide,pitch, yaw, and roll control. Inboard and outboard engines were canted 3 deg and,6 deg autwards respectively from the vehicle lotigitudinal~tixis to,minimize the disturbing moments that would be induced by anengine failure at critical dynamic pressure, PropcPlants were supplied to the engines ,through suction lines from These tanks consisted the clustered arrangement of nine propellant tanks. of four 1.78 m (70 in) diameter ET-1 (fuel) tanks, four 1.78 m (70 in} diameter LOX (oxidizer) ranks,snd a 2.67 m (10.5 in) diameter center LOX Each ourboard tank (LOX and RP-1) supplied prope,llants to one tanks inboard and one outboard engine. The center LOX tank supplied the outThrust and longitudinal board tanks through the LOX interchange systam. The propellant tanks loads were carried by the pressurized LOX tanks. WCKC strticturally retained zt the forward end of the S-IB stage by the spider beam,

2 Sta 68.1 m (265% in}

Separation

Plane

AA Pay:oad

Sta 57.9 m (2285 in) sta 56.2 in 12211 in) Sta 55.8 m (2197 in) 3.9 m (154 in) Dia Sta 51.7 m (2035 in)

/%a -

43.2 m (1699 in) Sta 42.2 m (1653 in)

Ullage riliary Propulsion Module (2)

Sta 30.1 m (1187

Sta 24,4 m (962 in) J-2

f

Engine Dia.

6.5 m (257 in)

275

Four 155,057 N (?4:86D lbf) thrust solid propellant retro motors, mounted cirsumferentially on the S-IVB aft interscage (canted at 9,s deg.), decelerated the S-IB stage and S-IL% aft interstage trn accomplish sepnration from the S-IVB stage. Right equally sized fins \+ere attached to the base of the S-IB stage to provide vehicle support and bolddown points prior to launch and to provide inflight stability. Each fin projected an area of approximately 4.95 m2 (53,3 ft2) a nd extended radially about 2.74 m (9 ft) from the outer surface of the thrusr,structl 1x-e. Additional systems on the S-IB stage included: (a) theflight control system, (b) the hydraulic system which gimbi slled the outboard engines, (c) the electrical system which dist,rib,utel d and,cdntrolled the' cdnt'rol,,~Sysrem,r~hich tberstage electrical power, (d) the environmental, ,mally condi5oned the aft comparrme,nt of ins'tr umentoanisters Xl ,,and ,F2~, (e) the data acquisition system which acquire1 Land, transmitted data for securti the evaluation of stage performance and envir' onmeiit, and (f))a range safety system. Guidance and cant' roI con%nds were, re,cei+<ed from the Instrument Unit. A-2.2 S-IB-2 CONFIGDRATION DIFFERENCES,

The significant configuration difference&between, S-IB-,l and S-IB-2, discussed below, pertainto the stage structure,',H-l~engines, control pressure system, flight control system,,electrical,system, and environmental? control system;,~ Some of these configuratidn'ehanges were,also included in S-U&3., 1. Stage Structure

The hardware configuration on S-IB-2 is the same asthat used on S-IB-1 with one exception, Thse fuel tank'F1 on S-IB-2'~s the same type as the other tanks on S-IB-2 . However;'on S-IB-I., the No. 1 fuel tank was a lightweight type, used becal.se of damage to the tank ,bulkhead tllat was intended to be used.
2.

H-l

Engine

System modifications,&rs incorporated into the S-IB-2

H-l

engine

The following system:

vent that transient, inlet

LOX Turbopump Seal - The seal was redes,igned to incorporate a provide; a preSsur,e,balance,af'the ,carbon seal during the start

Heat Exchanger Orifice - The 3 orifices at the heat exchanger were reduced to 0,257 cm (0.101 in) diameter.

276

Thrust OK Pressure Switch (TOPS) - A third TOPS was added for The thrust OK pressure svitch calibration parts purposes of redundancy, were manifolded together and the orifices were welded into the calibration line, cable Aspirator Insulation - This insulation I assembly instead of a lo&wire on outboard
3.

will be retained engines.

by a

Control

Pressure

System were incorporatedinto the, S-IB-2 added ,to 'to 0,0566 m3

control

T!w following modifications pressure system:

Fiberglass Sphere - A Q,O253 m! (lift') lsphore'was the ccnrrol pressure system. This increased the'system'volume (2 ,ft3) in order to yield additional purging capabiiity. sure rcgulntor bleed ports with the SA-10 regulator. Z~i Fli~ght . Control
to eliminate ,the

Pressure ReguLator - vent cheek valves were added to the 'presprelaunch problem'encountercd

System

The only modification to the' S-IB-2 f,lightcontrol,system was the reduction oi the outer diameter of,~the,,acc~ulator piston by O.Ql cm [Q.O04 in) to prevent piston-sleeve interference noted,on'earlier stages. 3. clcctrical Electrical Systems modifications were ,incorporated stgitch into the S-IB-2 was added.

The following system: Switc!l Selector

- A more reliable

selector

Distributor accommodate the extra

- A second propulsion TOPS.

distributor

Nas added'to

DECO Logic - The 0ECCI logic was modified would have to cut off before the remaini.nZ : engines event one outboard engine failed prior to grouping

so that a second engine shut down, in the of the TOPS.

Charging Delays - A second means of energizing the relays which chnrgi- the separation and retro rocket BBW firing units was provided because ei potential single-point failures in the circuitry. rnginc f.iring Conas Squib - Blocking diodes were added to the "measureuent squib fired" lines for each conax squib to preclude inadvertent by ii ground signal.

277

TOPS and Fuel Depletion Sensors - Grouping the enabling the fuel depletion sensors was separated into tl The premature fuel OECO encountered on S-II;-1 was thereby avoided, Enabling the fuel depletion sensors 1 set after TOPS t+as possible. Propellant the AN/DRW-13 units
6.

Dispersion System -, Secure.com mand receivers in this system. Control System

replaced

Environmental

The environmental control subsystem on S-I 3; except for the addition of the hazardous gas detection systom,'was i the same as that The hazardous gas detection system,pern litte'd remote on S-IB-1, sampling of the gas concentration incri,t'ical compartments of, the l,aunch operations. S-IB boattail and S-IVB interstage during'pre
A.3 A-3-1

S-IV-E STAGE S-WE CONFIGURATION

of~l7.98'm The S-IVB stage (Figure A-3) had nominal dimensions ;A single gimbal '(59 ft) in length and'6.60 m (260 in) ,in diameter. mounted J-2 engine, providing 877,000 N (200,000 If )f) total thrust at vacuum, porjered the vehicle (luring the S-IQ stage portion of powered, and gimballed, flight, The engine bias mounted on the thrust ,structure in + 7 deg square pattern, to ~the LH2 The thrust structure provided engine thrust tr ansfer {fuel) and LOX (oxidizer) containers. 'I:he tank?, LH2 for&rd and LOX of aft, were separated by a common bulkheat i. The LH, system consisted ,L a cylindrical container with a bulkhead at each ent 1. The LOX system consisted of the common bulkhead connected to,another bu lkhead. LOX and LH2 tank pressurization modules regulated t, ank pressures The CB boost phase, and S-IVB turn phase.' during ground operations, S-1 pneumatic control system used ambient helium to operate various valves for such purposes as vent relief, fill, and drain. The propellant utilization system consisted of aLOX mass sensor, a LH2 mass sensor, elecThe system controlled the tronics ,assembly, and a valve,positioner. to optimize consumption. propellant mixture ratic into the J-2,engine Nominal propellant loading capacity was 103,5 10 kg (228,500 'lbm), A skirt assembly was attached to the aft end of the cylinorical The S-SVD aft interstage and fairportion of the propellant contjtiner. Another skirt assembly ing was connected to the aft skirt assembly. to the forward end of the cylindrical portion of the prowas attached pellant container to support tite Instrumenz Unit and Payload.

T!lree 15:130 I? (3,400 lbf> thrust solid propellant ullag,:, motors, mounted circumferentially on the S-IW aft skirt (canted outwards at 35 deg), accelerated the S-IV?, stage to proi-idc proper positioning of the propellants prior to S-IVB stage ignition, Attitude control of the S-IVB stage within + 0.5 deg was prox)idcd by two Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) modules-during S-IVB powcrcd flight and coast. The modules were mounted on opposite sides of the Each module was a sel.f-conS-IW aft skirt at fin positions I and III. the oxidizer system, fuel tained unit composed of four basic systws: L sysLem, helium pressurization system, and three 667 N (150 lbf) thrust expulsion systc~ with the engines. Each APS iaodule was a positive hypergolic propellants contained in separate metal bellows, which,in 4 high presturn, were contained in hellurn pressurized u:lage tanks. sure helium sphere contained in the module supplied helium to the ullagc tanks at regulated pressure. This prcssurc was exerted on the bello7!s to pressurize the propellants. Monomethyl-hgdrazine (ETHH) and nitrogen tetrosFde (hizO/-) were used as fuel and oxidizer, respectively. Each module contained two motors to provide roll control during S-IVB powrcd A tl;irc flight, and yap and roll control a fter S-TVB engine cutoff. motor in each module was orientei perpendicularly to the S-IW ~longiiudinal axis to provide pitch control. (a} the flight Additional systems on the S-IVB stage inclnded: control ;ystem,which F;lc.l.uded an auxiliary attitude control subsystem and a thrust vector ccntrol subsystem; (b) the hydreulic spstem,which gixballed rhe .T-2 engine; (c> the electrical system,which distributed and controlled the stage electrical power; (d) the thermoconditioning sys&m,which thermally conditioned the electriczl/electronic modules in the stage aft compartment and forward skirt area; (e) the data acquisition system,which acquired and transmitted data for the evaluation 0: siage performawe and environment; (f) and a set of ordnance systems used for rocket ignition, staze separation: retro rocket ignition, ullage rocket jettison, and rarge safety. Guidance and coptrol commands were received from the Insiruzznt Unit. B.3.2 S-IT&202 CO~FI~~TI~~ DIFFEiZEXES

The significant configuration differences between S-I~7%-202 and ? ,j S-IW-201. discussed below, pertain to the propeilant sysreml 2-G engine system, flight control system, and the electrical system, some of ihese configuration changes were also included in S-I\%-203. 1, Propellant System

280

Fuel Tank Pressurization Diffuser - The diffuser used on was replaced with the diffuser used on S-IVB-203. The redesigned diffuser was lengthened and enclosed within . nylon bag to reduce the prcssurant gas velocity and to prevent direct gas impingement on the LH2 surface.

S-nw-?Oi

LOX Tank Vent - The adjustable LOX vent replaced vent so that the vent centerli,ne passed through the stage between start and end of stage powered flight. The angLe varies from one stage to another.
2. J-2

the fixed LOX center of gravity of the vent

Engine

System Line fatigue - The strength strength of and flexibility the augmented spark

of

the

Line

Fuel Tank Pressurization WE increased.

igniter

ASI Oxidizer Line - The (ASI) line was increased.

was delayed

GG Control Valve - The openin, m of to prevent hot-gas reverse flow

the Gas Generator at engine start.

(GG) valve

HeLiuiil Purge Line - The number of oheck valves on the ambient helium purse line to the =0X vent/relief valve was reduced to a single check valve. The ambient hcli.um purge line branch4 off the LHZ fill downstream of the hand valve. and drain valve purge line, sate also NOV _ The Main Oxidizer Valve (MOVj was reorificed to temperature environment. Dynotherm insulation for the Lower installed on the NOV closing control line. Assembly - A more reliable electrical cornpenwas

Electrical Control ii s s cmb 1 y w s in s t a 11 e d . -3. Flight Control

control

System was redesigned to make it valve in the helium fill

APS -. The propellant control module less susceptible to contamination. The check modli lc wa 5 r&placed by a more adequate one.

hydraulic Engine Gimbal System - The gas seal on the auxiliary pump was iimproved to prevent leakage. The yard actuator and dynamic pressure iccdbnck system was redesigned to eliminate undesirable oscj li:iti.ons.

4. redundant

Electrical

System switch selector, utilizing

Switch Selector - A more reliable circuitry, cas installed.

Range Safety System - The Range Safety Command Destruct System used on S-IVB-201 was replaced by the Secure Range S?fety Command System used on S-IVB-203. The nm digital system replaced the analog system and provided a high degree of security (protection) against unfriendly intentional RF interrogation and against unintentional false alarms, The Secure System used a separate receiver and decoder. Safety and Arming (S and A) Device - To preclude the possibility of leakage around-the S and d device amature that ignites the primacord assemblies, 0.079 cm (0.031 in) discs were added to the pr-izxacord parts. If inadvertent triggering of the sii. .Ltaneously chal-ged propellant dl;persion system EBU firing units had occurred, firing of the detonators in the S and A device would have been prevented as a result of this ioodification, The stage-to-stage interconnec,ting propellant dispersion system pyrotechnics were renored from the aft skirt and interstage , resulting in increased crew safety. VSKR - The voltage stafiding iiave ratio (VSWR) assembly was replaced by the more reliable model flown on S-TVB-203, Th; unit indicates the operating condition of the telemetry RF transmitter and antenna during flight. Main Propellant Valves - To ensure that trolled 3y the nain propellant valves, the engine redesigned to add a time delay between main valve engine cutoff is concutoff circuit was and prevalve closures.

EDS - To satisfy EDS requirements, the stLge engine thrust OR t:xust OK switch on the engine circuits wre redesigned so that either would operate both thrust 3K relays.

The Instrument Unit (IU) was located just fort-iard of the S-IVB stage. It WLS a three segment, cylindrical, uwrsssurized struccurc having a diameter of 6.60 n (260 in) and ,a 1enzi.z of 0.91 m (36 iii). The cylinder forms a part of the vehicle load-bearinz srructure and interfaces :.?ith F&:-tire -4-i silo:~>s the instruilea: Unit layout t&z S-IV% stage aad payload. Figdre A-j sho:;s the components located in each and anteaaa orientation. of the three sesents.

282

-:

: ::

i i i

UNIT 602

UNIT 603 c

TV RIMLITEI _ - _ _--.,.-

FIGURE A-5

1NSTR:WENT UPU'IT COKPONENTS LAYCUT.

254 The IU houses electrical co:ltrols) and monitors vehicle rc-entry. R-4.2 IU-202 and mechanical equipment performance from liftoff that guides, to atmospheric

CONFJGURRTION DIFFEWNCES

The significant configuration differences between S-IU-202 and S-IU-2Ol are discussed below and pertaj.n to the guidance system, flight control systemj electrical system, and environmental control system. 1. guidance Guidance System modifications
Cover

The following system:

were incorporated
- The cover

into

the S-IU-202

LVDC Memory Module

digital computer (LVDC) was redesigned "ballooning" the cover at a relatively 0.69 N/cm2 or 1.0 psid). Stabilized 2. flight ST-124N Stabilized Platform System Flight Control

to the launch vehicle to alleviate the possibility of lox pressure differential (about

of the ST-124M Platform - Th-0 middlegimbal (SPS) was modified to reduce weight.

System modifications were incorporated into the S-IU-202

The following control system:

Control Signal Processor - A dual rate capability the control sig,nal processor to provide Power line filters were abort limit to another. The EDS system rate switch function was modified Gttenuate input frequencies above 16 Hz, such as AS-201 fl~i~zht. 3.
Efcctrical System

switch was added to of switching from one also added to the unit. by adding circuits t0 were encountered on the

between the S-IU-202 and The only significant dl 'fferences S-I~'-ZOI rlectrical systems were the use of a more reliable switch srlccti*r, the addition of shock mounts on certain distributors, and the i rcplaccncnt of the $0 _ 1 set EDS timer by a 6ci t 1.5 set timer. 4. Environmental Control System were incorporated into the S-IU-202

The following modZfications El>\-i ro*-mi*, ta 1 Control system (ES):

2S5

eliminate IU.

Electronic Control Assembly the apparent sticking valve Gas Bearing Pressure Switch

- The assembly was redesigned to problem that occurred on AS-201. - This item was removed from the springs in

Quicl Disconnect Couplings - The stainless steel the couplings were improved to eliminate cracking problems. A.5 PAYLOAD

The overall length of the Payload (Apollo Spacecraft) was 16.0 m (632 in), excluding the Launch Escape System. The maximum diameter was 6.6 m (260 in). Figure A-6 shows the payload subdivided into the Command Module, Service Module, Lunar ExcursionModule Adapter Section, and Launch 1016 cm (400 in} long with a Escape System. The Launch Escape System, maximum diameter of 66 cm (26 in), was jettisoned shortly after S-WE stage ignition. The Lunar ExcursionModule will not become active until the AS-206 flight.

The Command Module was a cone shaped'structure 340 cm (134 in) long and 385 cm (152 in) in diameter. The inner pressure structure and outer heat shield structure were designed to limir the inside temperature to The structure consisted of:(l) a forward heat 366OK during reentry, which forms shield covering the apex; (2) a crew compartment heat shield, the remainder of the cone; and (3) an aft heat shield which covers the blunt portion of the Command Module. Each of the four reaction control engines in the Command Nodule, used for attitude orientation, had the zapability to develop 423 h' (95 lbf) thrust for 230 set, and co-uld operate on a pulsed or continuous basis. The propellants were Monomethyl-Hydrazine (MMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (X204), used as fuel and oxidizer,respectively. A.5.2 SERVICE H0gUl.E

The Service Module consisted basically of a cylindrical shell 61 cm (155 in} long and a gimballed engine attached to the aft portion of the shell. The overall dimensions of the Service Modulewere 673 cm f26J in) in length and 391 cm (154 in) in diameter. The internal shell structure consisted of a forward and aft bulkhead connected by six radial beams. These beams divided the shell into two sets of bays, each with 50, 60, and 70 deg sectors (six sectors total). Pour propellant tanks were located in the 60 and 70 deg bays.with the environmental control system radiators located on the outer skin of four sectors.

286

Sta. 68.1 m

View Looking on 4 Axis

The Service Module was propelled by a sin,le gimballed engine and was controlled by four clusters (4 chambers per cluster) of reaction control engines. The gimballed engine developed a thrust of 94,576 N (21,330 lbf) and used a SO/SO blend of unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine/ Hydrazine (UDi%H/N2H4j ior fuel and nitrogen tetrosile (N204.) as the oxidizer. It had the capability for 30 restarts. Each reaction control engine had a thrust capability of 427 N (96 Lbf) for a duration of 1000 Each reacticn control engine cluster had the capability to seconds. develop a thrust of 4430 N (996 lbf) for 1000 set and to operate on a pulsed or continuous basis.

The Lunar Excursion Module 853 cm (335 in) long and had and 660 cm (260 in), respectively. provided the mating requirements Unit. The upper portion of the which were strap-hinged to the the panels were separated ttin, attached to the Instrument Unit

Adapter x+as a simple truncated cone forward and aft diameterxof 391 cm (154 in) The adapter aerodynamic faking for the Service,Module and Instrument adapter US composed of four panels lower portion of the adapter. At separa~? by a shaped charge. The adapter remained after spacecraft separation.

288

ATMOSPHERIC SlJM.XARY B.1 INTROlXICTION

This appendix presents a summary of the atmospheric environment at time of the launch of AS-202. The format of the data is similar to that presented in launches of the Saturn I vehicles tq allow comparisons to data near the launch kc made. Surface and upper air winds and thermodynamic time are given, B-2 GENERAL ATMXPHERIC COhJITIONS AT LAUNCH TIME

A weak stationary front lay across the southeast corner of Georgia and the northwest part of Florida. South of the front, the surface pressure had little change. The rzind flow up to 15 km rqas generally from the southiwst. B-3 SURFACE OBSERVATIOM AT LAUJCH TlX.2

At the time of launch, there were 8/10 cumulus,,clouds and l/10 Visibility was 10 miles with light rain showers in the cirrus c?ouds. distance. Towering cumulus clouds were towards the west through north. Table B-I summarizes the surface observations near launch tirae. Only rwo anemometers at the launch pad area provided satisfactory data. Wind Records on Launch Pad

Surface winds r~ere measured near launch time with aerovane anemometers located on the service structure, umbilical tower, pad light pole, and the blockhouse. .&II winds were light from the i,rest and northwest, and showed no systematic variation with height. Salues of wind speed and direction arc given in Table E-I.

Upper air wind dazza r+ere obtained from sis different wind systems, fi.ve heing used in the final mfteoro.logical tape. A sumnary of the types of data svaii;iblc is given in Ta%le B-II.

i 1 -

290

291

Mind Speed The wind speed at the lover altitudes was ~IJW, not exceeding 20 m/s be low 25 km. The masimtzm wind in i;he high dynsmic. pressure region was 15 m/s at 12 km. Between 25 km and 50 km, the wind increased,rraching ii masimuz The Cajun-Dart Rocketsonde wind data showed of 32 m/s at 45,s km. another wind maximum of 65.6 mis BE 66 imcm. (See Figure B-1) Wind Direction T'ne wind direction was appz-osiceeeiy from the S1$up to 15 km; tlifn, it sh%fted :+X&I south (backed) to the east starting at 15 km altitude, up to 20 km, and remained generally east above 20 km up to the limit of the rvind data. (See Figure B-2) Pitch Wired Component piich component winds were tailwinds up to 15 km, reaching a IO.7 m/s at 12.3 km. Above 15 km, the r&nds were headwinds, with altitude to a maximum of 30.8 m/s at 38 km. A bias was not used in the tilt program for this launch., (See,

The maxiimm~of increasing pitch wind Figure B-3)

Yaw Mind Component Up to 22 km, the yaiu component winds were from the right :;ith a cilasimm of 15-4 mjs ai 10.25 ;n. Above 22 km, the winds were generally from the left aad increased t3 a maximum of 19.1 m/s at 45 km. (SPe Figure R-4) Component Wind Shears genera1 Component wind of low 3apitude. shears @b = 1000 m) shown irL Figum B-5 is'ere in

.+ r --_ 1 -

,i1 L \\
\
--;--,.--

--k,..-. /

__---.

-I-----T-^I / 3.I

_.-

-,

294

Range

Time

(set)

?!!5

AlCiCude

[&am)

Range Tim

(see)

296

Altitude 50

Can)
. I

45

40

35:

30

en li on 'II"

is

20

15

10

0.00

@.bl

0.02

0.

B*5 Patrick optical

THERMODYNAMIC DATA Comparisons of the thermodynamic data taken,at : 'launch time with the density, pressure, and Reference Atmosphere (19G3) for temperature, index of refraction are shown in Figures B-f i and s-7.

Temperature Temperatures in the atmosphere at launch time :, were 2 to 3 percent ~~~~~ ~~ higher than the Patrick Referenoe*Atmosphere (19G3) temPeratur1 es up "0 '33 km. They were also higher between 38 kwand 43': km, ,,yiith :a 'maxim? of 5'percent at 40 km. Between 33 km and ,3S kti and above:4f I km, the ,temper-' (S(?f : atures were lower !:han the Patrick Reference ,Atgosphere (l963).' Figure B-6) Density was' 2.3 percent The air density at the surface at launch,time Thedensity Reference, Atmo~sphe~re '(~1963)~,density. ,lower than the Patrick Above 11 km the p~rcente,ge~'deviation,of~the remained lower up to 11 km, (1963),bccame increasingly, density frm the-Patrick Refe: rence Atmosphere higher, reaching a maximum of 12.5 percent hig her density at 46,km, (See Figure B-6) Pressure Pressure at the surface was very nearly the same as the Patrick percent lower). Above Reference Atmosphere (1963) s urface'pressure,(0.04 the pressure at launch time became increasingly greater, \Kth the surface, increasing altitude, e Atmosphere (1963) with than the Patrick Referent the greatest difference being 12.5 percent higher at 46 km. {See Figure B-7) Optical Index of Refraction

"

index of refraction At the ,surface'at launch time, the optical was 11.9 (n - 1) x 10s6 unitshigher than the optical index of refraction from the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963). Above the surface, the value reached a maximum of 20.8 (n - 1) x lop6 units higher than the Patrick Reference Atmosphere (1963) at 2.5 km, then decreased rapidly with altitude. (See Figure B-7) B.6 COMPARiSON OF WIND DATA WITH Table B-III shows the maximum in the high dynamic pressure region vehicles. The wind shears are given PREVIOUS SATURN LAUKRES wind speed and wind speed components for AS-201, AS-203, AS-202, and Saturn for the same vehicles in Table E-IV.

40

..


s-1 SAT2 SA-3 M-4
512-5 47.0 33.6 31.3 51.8 42.1 15.0 I 17.3 34.3 16.0 242 12*25 ,,36.,8 31.8,,,, : ,30,7 46.2, 41.1 ,, -14.8' ,:13.00 ',13.50 ,d3.75 i3.00' 10;75,,, 12.50, 1,2.75 10.75 :

I
,:29.,2 ,-13.3 , 11.,2 : -23.4 -11.5 12.2 J4.8 23.6 14.6 '10.8 -43,.3 16.6 I 12.25 12.25 12.00 13,.00 ,11.25 17.00 ,12.00' 13.25 15.25 15.45 13.25~ 13.25 10.25,,

261 269
253 268 96 47 243 351 3% 250 312 231

13.50
13.75 13.00 10.75 12.50 11.75 13.00 15.25 14.75 13.75 13.00 12.00

SA-G S-4-7 L-9 SA-8 St%-10 AS-201

AS-203

1
I

-112.
27.5

12.0
12r9 57.3

11-c IO
14.75 13.r '5 12.50 12.5

15.0
70.0 18.0 16.0

.X3-202

,ll.l
10.7

io 1
I

-15*4

._I

301 TABLE B-IV

EXTFtEXE WIhQ NEAR I.N HIGH DYNAMIC PRESS7JREREGIOK

,Altitl <1-:

s-4 SA-5 U-6 SA-7 SA-9 SA-8 SA-10 I.

0.0155 0.0162 0.0121 0.0078 0.0096 0.0965 0.0130 12.25 14.25 10.50' Q;dl o.br ~0.0184 10.75

302 REFERENCES I. .
2.

"AS-202 HASA lw-53470, dated June 3, 1966,

Launch Vehicle

Operational

Flight

Trajectory",

Flight TR-P&VE-66-28 Revision A, "Final Saturn AS-202 Propulsion System S-IB-2

far Performance Pr xdiction 5, 1966. Stage", dated 3.;:cst Pr,e&iit :ted Mass CharacterStanda rds", for'Saturn IB IB dared AS-202

3,
4.

"Sat1 731IB SA-202 Final R-PWE-VAN-66-49, istics", dated tune 10: 1966. SEtI008-001-1, 3une, 1966, "Project ~~0110 Coordinc

2,System

5.

"Final Flight Performance Fredid Iion TR-P&VE-66-28, Propt~lsion System S-IB-2 Stage"; not da'ted'.: ,,,', Xl%-SAT-FE-66-8 Launch Vehicle

6* 7.

(Confidential), "Results, of the First Saturn Test Flight AS-ZGl", ,datnd,Nay,'6: ,' 1966. ~"K~sults:of the~Second dated Septer nber'22,

11PR-SAT-FE-66-12 (Confidential}, Launch Vehicle Test Flight'AS-203",

Sacurn 1966.

8.

"Saturn IS, S&202, Launch Vehicle Flight Readi. less' Review July 22, 1966, MSFC Saturn IB Program bffice.
AS-202 Saturn

Report",

9.

by Technical

Vehicle Handbooks

Data

Boo~~

and Manuals

'(Confidential), ;lay 15,,:1965 LVE. ,' Section, R-PI

Security This

Classification report

Officer and approve,d fc

has been reviewed

ation

Korking

Group

. :